Johannes

I wouldn't think so, either. A check would be needed whether the parameter is in fact the specified type, e.g. `List`, and if so, just store it, otherwise create a...

@Randgalt I'm forgot myself, but I don't think so. I'll check later, but I can provide another MR for it.

I was thinking about this again, and I think it's a bit counterintuitive to have a parameter of type `Collection` in the setter. It would just be a special case...

Well in that case they could just define a property in the record as type `Collection`, then they would have the setter with parameter type `Collection`. Or am I misunderstanding...

Sidenote: the JavaDoc for the setter methods also mentions the creation of a copy of the collection instead of just setting it: `* Re-create the internally allocated {@code Set} for...