Unfortunately, it causes quite a bit of grief. The example I provided was the shortest code I could write to share my pain. Thank you for your thought, but not hoping for an actual solution here...simply ranting :) Regrettably, the actual problem is a lot more complex. It also involves collection initializers, method signature ambiguity, and the entire zoo of built-in numeric data types. I'm helping consumers of a framework avoid the detritus added by explicit casts / constructor invocations. I already have a solution...a separate method signature for each data type (in my code). Its not a huge deal, simply repellant to look at. It also snowballs a bit, to a few places, and forces me to carry test cases for each one. If C# had a different precedence for implicit/explicit, a far more elegant solution would be possible. That, and honestly, it annoys me that it favors an implicit convenience over something I've told it explicitly NOT to do.
