implement setter fallback for subscripts #24872
Open
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
follows up #24871
For subscript assignments, if an overload of
[]=
/{}=
is not found, the LHS checks for overloads of[]
/{}
as a fallback, similar to what field setters do since #24871. This is accomplished by just compiling the LHS if the assignment overloads fail. This has the side effect that the error messages are different now, instead of displaying the overloads of[]=
/{}=
that did not match, it will display the ones for[]
/{}
instead. This could be fixed by checking forefLValue
when giving the error messages for[]
/{}
but this is not done here.The code for
[]
subscripts is a little different because of themArrGet
/mArrPut
overloads that always match. If themArrPut
overload matches without a builtin subscript behavior for the LHS then it callssemAsgn
again withmode = noOverloadedSubscript
. Before this meant "fail to compile" but now it means "try to compile the LHS as normal", in both cases the overloads of[]=
are not considered again.