same_item_push was added on nightly, but is currently throwing
a false negative. I added an allow for it, but this causes a
warning on stable for an unknown lints, so allow unknown lints for
now.
This has some particularly annoying consequences for initialization order: notably, we can't actually create any ES4 classes using the standard machinery until after the three objects I just mentioned get created. Ergo, we have to create them through lower-level means, handing prototypes around, and then initialize AVM2's system prototypes list for it.
When we start adding more system prototypes, we'll also have to fill the extras with blank objects and then slot them in as we create them.
We're about to massively change the initialization process, and we really don't want to create another situation where the player can get caught with it's pants down.
This was surprisingly tricky - due to the need to look up superclasses, class trait instantiation requires an active `Activation` and `UpdateContext`. We can't get those during VM instance creation, since the player needs the VM first before it can give it a context to work with. Ergo, we have to tear the global scope initialization in two. At the first possible moment, the player calls a new `load_player_globals` method that initializes all class traits in global scope.
I have no idea why this is necessary - I was in a context where what *should* have been a `NativeMethod<'gc>` was instead being interpreted as some different function type with all the same lifetimes, but with an extra `'gc` lifetime as well. Funneling this through a non-trait method bypasses whatever is going on with the trait solver, and then at that point the trait solver knows what to do. Consider this an extra level of conversion.
ECMA-262 3rd ed. doesn't mention anything about different number types, so the standard as-if rule applies. If we are going to distinguish number types, we have to treat them as if they were the same type, promoting to `f64` as necessary to facilitate the conversion. I took a cursory look at an ECMA-262 4th ed. draft and it appears to do the same, although it calls everything `GeneralNumber` and has some really confusing psuedo-Pascal syntax for some reason.
I am extremely glad AVM2 does not provide access to 64-bit integer types (for now, at least).
Namespaces as values adds a bunch of extra special cases to the coercion and equality rules that don't really belong there. Namespace itself just returns it's URI as a string, so we can just make `NamespaceObject` do that and then treat it the same way we treat boxed primitives.
JustinCB