There's generally nothing particularly inefficient about it. It doesn't generally matter to the JVM that you've made a subclass and added a constructor to it-- that's a normal, everyday thing to do in an object-oriented language. I can think of quite contrived cases where you could cause an inefficiency by doing this (e.g. you have a repeatedly-called method that ends up taking a mixture of different classes because of this subclass, whereas ordinary the class passed in would be totally predictable-- in the latter case, the JIT compiler could make optimisations that are not feasible in the first). But really, I think the cases where it'll matter are very contrived.

我更倾向于从你是否想用大量的匿名类“把事情弄得乱七八糟”的角度来看待这个问题。作为一个粗略的指南，可以考虑使用这个习惯用法，就像使用匿名类作为事件处理程序一样。

在(2)中，您处于对象的构造函数内部，因此“this”指的是您正在构造的对象。这和其他构造函数没有什么不同。

As for (3), that really depends on who's maintaining your code, I guess. If you don't know this in advance, then a benchmark that I would suggest using is "do you see this in the source code to the JDK?" (in this case, I don't recall seeing many anonymous initialisers, and certainly not in cases where that's the only content of the anonymous class). In most moderately sized projects, I'd argue you're really going to need your programmers to understand the JDK source at some point or other, so any syntax or idiom used there is "fair game". Beyond that, I'd say, train people on that syntax if you have control of who's maintaining the code, else comment or avoid.

我第二Nat的答案，除了我将使用一个循环，而不是创建并立即从asList(elements)中抛出隐式列表:

static public Set<T> setOf(T ... elements) {
    Set set=new HashSet<T>(elements.size());
    for(T elm: elements) { set.add(elm); }
    return set;
    }

Mario Gleichman描述了如何使用Java 1.5泛型函数来模拟Scala List字面量，但遗憾的是，最终得到的是不可变列表。

他定义了这个类:

package literal;

public class collection {
    public static <T> List<T> List(T...elems){
        return Arrays.asList( elems );
    }
}

并这样使用它:

import static literal.collection.List;
import static system.io.*;

public class CollectionDemo {
    public void demoList(){
        List<String> slist = List( "a", "b", "c" );
        List<Integer> iList = List( 1, 2, 3 );
        for( String elem : List( "a", "java", "list" ) )
            System.out.println( elem );
    }
}

谷歌Collections现在是Guava的一部分，它支持类似的列表构造思想。在这次采访中，贾里德·列维说:

[…在我编写的几乎每个Java类中，使用最多的特性是减少Java代码中重复击键次数的静态方法。输入如下命令非常方便: Map<OneClassWithALongName, AnotherClassWithALongName> = Maps.newHashMap(); List<String> animals =列表。immutableList(“猫”，“狗”，“马”);

7/10/2014:如果它能像Python一样简单就好了:

动物=['猫'，'狗'，'马']

2/21/2020:在Java 11中，你现在可以说:

animals =列表。(猫，狗，马)

撇开效率不谈，我发现自己很少希望在单元测试之外创建声明式集合。我相信双大括号语法是非常可读的。

实现列表的声明式构造的另一种方法是使用数组。asList(T…)像这样:

List<String> aList = Arrays.asList("vanilla", "strawberry", "chocolate");

当然，这种方法的局限性在于您不能控制要生成的列表的特定类型。

这将为每个成员调用add()。如果你能找到一种更有效的方法将项放入散列集中，那么就使用它。注意，内部类可能会生成垃圾，如果您对此很敏感的话。 在我看来，上下文似乎是new返回的对象，也就是HashSet。 如果你需要问…更有可能的是:在你之后的人会知道这一点吗?它容易理解和解释吗?如果两个问题你都能回答“是”，那就随便用吧。

There's generally nothing particularly inefficient about it. It doesn't generally matter to the JVM that you've made a subclass and added a constructor to it-- that's a normal, everyday thing to do in an object-oriented language. I can think of quite contrived cases where you could cause an inefficiency by doing this (e.g. you have a repeatedly-called method that ends up taking a mixture of different classes because of this subclass, whereas ordinary the class passed in would be totally predictable-- in the latter case, the JIT compiler could make optimisations that are not feasible in the first). But really, I think the cases where it'll matter are very contrived.

我更倾向于从你是否想用大量的匿名类“把事情弄得乱七八糟”的角度来看待这个问题。作为一个粗略的指南，可以考虑使用这个习惯用法，就像使用匿名类作为事件处理程序一样。

在(2)中，您处于对象的构造函数内部，因此“this”指的是您正在构造的对象。这和其他构造函数没有什么不同。

As for (3), that really depends on who's maintaining your code, I guess. If you don't know this in advance, then a benchmark that I would suggest using is "do you see this in the source code to the JDK?" (in this case, I don't recall seeing many anonymous initialisers, and certainly not in cases where that's the only content of the anonymous class). In most moderately sized projects, I'd argue you're really going to need your programmers to understand the JDK source at some point or other, so any syntax or idiom used there is "fair game". Beyond that, I'd say, train people on that syntax if you have control of who's maintaining the code, else comment or avoid.