Support consumption of instance increment operators #77098
Conversation
dotnet-issue-labeler
bot
added
the
untriaged
|
@cston, @dotnet/roslyn-compiler For the second review |
| @@ -1399,6 +1399,10 @@ internal SingleLookupResult CheckViability(Symbol symbol, int arity, LookupOptio | |||
| { | |||
| return LookupResult.Empty(); | |||
| } | |||
| else if ((options & LookupOptions.MustBeOperator) != 0 && unwrappedSymbol is not MethodSymbol { MethodKind: MethodKind.UserDefinedOperator }) | |||
| { | |||
| return LookupResult.Empty(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we testing this code path?
Not yet
| bool resultIsUsed = ResultIsUsed(node); | ||
|
|
||
| if ((kind is (UnaryOperatorKind.PostfixIncrement or UnaryOperatorKind.PostfixDecrement) && resultIsUsed) || | ||
| !CheckValueKind(node, operand, BindValueKind.RefersToLocation | BindValueKind.Assignable, checkingReceiver: false, BindingDiagnosticBag.Discarded)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we testing
BindValueKind.Assignable?
Not specifically. A an increment/decrement target must be assignable and this is checked on line 2272. Therefore, I do not find it critical to cover that specific dimension in error scenarios.
| OverloadResolution.Options.None); | ||
|
|
||
| typeArguments.Free(); | ||
| diagnostics.Add(node, useSiteInfo); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we testing use-site diagnostics?
No
| public void Increment_077_Consumption_Postfix_Used([CombinatorialValues("++", "--")] string op, bool fromMetadata) | ||
| { | ||
| var source1 = @" | ||
| public class C1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we testing with struct, or with type parameter with/without class or struct constraints?
I do not find these scenarios interesting. The test is not about code that we generate, it is about an error that doesn't depend on the mentioned aspects.
| public void Increment_078_Consumption_Postfix_Used([CombinatorialValues("++", "--")] string op, bool fromMetadata) | ||
| { | ||
| var source1 = @" | ||
| public class C1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we testing with struct, or with type parameter with/without class or struct constraints?
I do not find these scenarios interesting. The test is verifying fall back to the legacy operators.
No description provided.