This commit breaks the build: we still need to tell `Avm2` how to turn ABC traits into our own internal `Trait<'gc>`, `Class<'gc>`, and `Method<'gc>` types. We also need something to track which traits have already been instantiated, because `callstatic` would otherwise reinstantiate the trait in a different scope. (In fact, I think it *does* do exactly that right now...)
The intention is to completely replace all usage of `Avm2XYZEntry` with `Class`, `Trait`, and `Method`. This will allow runtime-provided global class traits to coexist with those provided by user code.
Inspired by Dinnerbone's PR doing the exact same thing to AVM1.
On AVM2 we have a bit of a subtle issue: the base implementation of `set_property_local` and `init_property_local` *must* return `ReturnValue`s to avoid double-borrows. Each implementation of `TObject` must resolve them before returning.
This function has vague documentation about enabling locale-specific formatting in subclasses. As far as I can tell, none of the objects I implemented so far do anything different than `toString`, so I just have it use the same `TObject` property I set up for `toString`.
This was originally something *way* more evil: mixed inheritance between ES3 and ES4 classes. It didn't pan out due to fundamental limitations of the two object models. How the hell did Brendan Eich/Adobe/TC-39 expect ES4 classes to be adopted in already-existing codebases?!
We still reuse the `FunctionObject` machinery internally. If necessary, we may want to split this into a separate `ClassObject` if some internal `TObject` method needs replacing for classes.
In practice not many movies will care about this, because the `AS3` namespace is open by default. You could opt-out of that, and I suppose that was there for using existing ES3 code in AS3 projects. ES4 would have had a similar ES4 namespace, which "JavaScript 2.0" code would need to opt into. Of course, ES4/JS2 never happened, so we just have this weird historical quirk here.
The reason for this is that, in AVM2, `toString` and `valueOf` are not defined on the classes or prototypes of `Function` or `Class`. Instead, they use the `Object.prototype` versions of those functions. Ergo, string and primitive coercion are inherent object methods (the ones that get `[[DoubleSquareBrackets]]` in the ECMA standards). In Ruffle, our equivalent to `[[DoubleSquareBrackets]]` methods are methods on the `TObject` trait, so we're adding them there.
This mechanism will make implementing boxed value types (ala AVM1's `BoxedObject`) easier, too.
We also add some reasonable defaults for `ScriptObject` and `FunctionObject` which will appear on objects, functions, and classes.
Private names now return `false`, and we run any names through trait lookups. This also means any namespace resolution can fail now, in case we need to throw a `VerifyError`.
I have... significant reservations with the way object enumeration happens in AVM2. For comparison, AVM1 enumeration works like this: You enumerate the entire object at once, producing a list of property names, which are then pushed onto the stack after a sentinel value. This is a properly abstract way to handle property enumeration.
In AVM2, they completely replaced this with index-based enumeration. What this means is that you hand the object an index and it gives you back a name or value. There's also an instruction that will give you the next index in the object.
The only advantage I can think of is that it results in less stack manipulation if you want to bail out of iteration early. You just jump out of your loop and kill the registers you don't care about. The disadvantage is that it locks the object representation down pretty hard. They also screwed up the definition of `hasnext`, and thus the VM is stuck enumerating properties from 1. This is because `hasnext` and `hasnext2` increment the index value before checking the object. Code generated by Animate 2020 (which I suspect to be the final version of that software that generates AVM2 code) initializes the index at hero, and then does `hasnext2`, hence we have to start from one.
I actually cheated a little and added a separate `Vec` for storing enumerant names. I strongly suspect that Adobe's implementation has objects be inherently slot-oriented, and named properties are just hashmap lookups to slots. This would allow enumerating the slots to get names out of the object.
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.
David Wendt