Our already odd `super` handling throws up another subtlety regarding bound recievers. Since we have to construct an instance of a parent class in order to get traits on it, we also have to make sure that we initialize traits with the correct reciever. I'll demonstrate here:
```let mut base = base_proto.construct(avm, context, &[])?;
let name = base.resolve_multiname(&multiname).unwrap();
let value = base.get_property(object, &name, avm, context)?.resolve(avm, context)?```
In this case, if `name` is the name of a method, getter, or setter trait, then `get_property` will instantiate that trait on `base` but bound to `reciever`. This is correct behavior for this case, but more generally, trait instantiation is permenant and therefore there's potential for confusing shenanigans if you `get_property` with the wrong reciever.
To be very clear, `reciever` should *always* be the same object that is getting `get_property` et. all called on it. In the event that you need to instantiate traits with a different `reciever`, you should construct a one-off object and retrieve prototypes from that.
Previously, we were treating ES4 classes like syntactic sugar over a prototype chain (like ES6 classes); e.g. each declared trait was set in the given prototype and then property look-ups happened as normal.
This already caused problems with virtual properties, which could be partially-defined in subclasses and required careful checks to make sure we stopped checking the prototype chain on the *correct* half of the property.
However, this is a hint of a larger problem, which is that ES4 classes don't actually define anything on the prototype chain. Instead, the instance itself constructs class properties and methods on itself. This allows things like methods automatically binding `this`, which isn't included in this commit but will be implemented really soon.
The prototype chain still exists even on pure ES4 classes, due to the need for backwards compatibility with ES3 code. Object, for example, still defines it's methods as prototype methods and thus there needs to be a prototype chain to reach them. I actually could have gotten away with using the prototype chain if AS3 *hadn't* retained this "legacy" detail of ES3 allowing this class/prototype distinction to leak out into upcoming tests.
We still actually use the prototype chain for one other thing: trait resolution. When we look for a trait to install onto an object, we pull traits from the prototype chain using a special set of `TObject` methods. This happens in opposite order from normal prototype lookups so that subclassing and verification can proceed correctly.
`super` somehow became even harder to implement: we now actually construct the parent class so we can get traits from it, which is going to complicate method binding as mentioned above.
This tests:
* Getter invocation
* Setter invocation
* Properties with one or the other, but not both
* Inheritance
* Superproperty getters and setters
* Getters with inherited setter
* Setters with inherited getter
The previous system for handling setters would execute the setter and then return a value to indicate whether or not the caller needed to resolve a stack frame. However, no caller of `Property.set` actually did this. Ergo, errors in setters and getters would not resolve up the stack at the correct time.
This problem also exists in AVM1 but is far less noticable as AVM1 only has two very uncommon runtime errors and very few movies use `throw`.
Normally, `set_property` only affects the object it was called on, which makes sense: otherwise, we couldn't override values that originate from a class prototype without accidentally monkey-patching the prototype. However, virtual setters only exist in prototypes and need to be accessible from child objects.
The solution to this is to have a specific method to check if a virtual setter exists. Virtual setters are then resolved through the prototype chain. If no virtual setter exists, then the reciever object is handed the value.
Note that we always use the `reciever` object rather than `self` so that `setsuper` can work correctly. In `setsuper`, we resolve the base class, and then set properties on it with the actual object in question as it's reciever. If a virtual setter is called, it will get the actual object it should be manipulating; and otherwise, prototypes will not be modified or consulted.
This required the reintroduction of dedicated reciever parameters to `Object.get_property_local` and `Object.set_property`, which I had removed from the AVM1 code I copied it from. It turns out being able to change the reciever was actually necessary in order to make super set/get work.
The previous system primarily relied on `Executable` to automatically start and continue a super chain. This works, but only for class hierarchies without *override gaps* - methods that override another method not defined by the direct superclass of the method. In that case, the override method would be called twice as the `base_class` was moved up one prototype at a time, which is wrong.
The new system relies on the call site to accurately report the prototype from which the current method was retrieved from. Super calls then start the resolution process *from the superclass of this prototype*, to ensure that the already-called method is skipped.
It should be noted that the proper `base_class` for things like `callmethod`, `callstatic`, `call`, `get`/`set` methods, and other call opcodes that don't use property look-up are best-effort guesses that may need to be amended later with better tests.
To facilitate `base_proto` resolution, a new `Object` method has been added. It's similar to `get_property`, but instead returns the closest prototype that can resolve the given `QName`, rather than the actual property's `ReturnValue`. Call operations use this to resolve the `base_proto`, and then resolve the method being called in `base_proto`. The existing `exec_super` method was removed and a `base_proto` method added to `exec` and `call`.
This works primarily by retaining the current superclass prototype in the activation object and then using it to retrieve the super method.
For constructors, we implement the `constructor` property, which is probably not the correct way to do this.
This currently treats `coerce_a` as a no-op. Strictly speaking, this is for type verification purposes, but we currently don't type-verify ABC code. Ergo, this requires no VM support at this time.
Also, implement a method table that method traits can optionally add themselves to.
Also also, add the ability to invoke a method without a `this` object. This required a non-trivial refactoring of the activation machinery, and changes to the signature of `NativeFunction`, and all native AVM2 functions.
In the future, the `unwrap_stack_frame` mechanism should be expanded upon to allow running exception handlers and recovering from a Rust error - but not today.
Notably, this also removes `new_closure_scope` as it is not needed. AVM1 does not capture `with` scopes in closures, but AVM2 (as well as modern ECMAScript) does.
David Wendt