Rewire DDC to use the analyzer task model

lib/src/checker/rules.dart

Index: lib/src/checker/rules.dart
diff --git a/lib/src/checker/rules.dart b/lib/src/checker/rules.dart
index 279a82bcb0dceb58c01a002eefdae32079b3bce3..ee8085989b0a94307f0dbd2e2a572e2ea4a39c5c 100644
--- a/lib/src/checker/rules.dart
+++ b/lib/src/checker/rules.dart
@@ -199,6 +199,10 @@ class RestrictedRules extends TypeRules {
   DartType getStaticType(Expression expr) {
     var type = expr.staticType;
     if (type != null) return type;
+    if (expr is SimpleIdentifier) {

[vsm, 2015/09/18 23:32:12]

Brian / Leaf - any suggestions on the right code here?  Without this, we're
hitting the missing type call before.  It looks like cases where the staticType
hasn't been registered with the AstNode but is on the element.

This fixes a number of "failures".

[Jennifer Messerly, 2015/09/19 00:18:46]

FYI, at least one place this used to happen was the "methodName" field of calls.
It happens because Analyzer doesn't need to compute the function type there, so
they don't (unless it's a tear off). However DDC has always relied on being able
to treat method calls as "tear off" + function call.

[Jennifer Messerly, 2015/09/19 00:23:38]

To clarify that:

Given `obj.method(args)`

analyzer would only care about the .staticType result for the whole
MethodInvocation, as well as `obj` and each of `args`. It would also compute the
Element for the method invocation.

DDC, however, would ask for the staticType of `.method` SimpleIdentifier too.
And expect it to be a function type with the signature (argTypes -> resultType).

See this line:
https://github.com/dart-lang/dev_compiler/blob/94d823b08e1a6420823bc7bc894fa4...

[Leaf, 2015/09/21 17:15:59]

I didn't port that line over because I was a little worried about how it would
interact, but I'll look into it.  Should be fine, I don't know any reason not to
have the type there.

[Brian Wilkerson, 2015/09/24 19:41:01]

Seems to me that we should change analyzer to always compute a function type
there. It would be good for ddc and possibly for other clients as well.

[Leaf, 2015/09/24 19:48:21]

I think the change on line 633 of this CL
https://codereview.chromium.org/1352763004/diff/80001/pkg/analyzer/lib/src/ge...
made this change unnecessary for DDC.  I had restricted the logic to strong mode
only, but could make it unconditional.

[Brian Wilkerson, 2015/09/24 21:17:48]

Yes. I think I made a comment to that effect in the review of that CL. :-)

I don't mind having different values for the static type information in strong
mode, but I'd prefer not to have the presence or absence of information depend
on the mode.

+      type = expr.staticElement?.type;
+      if (type != null) return type;
+    }
     if (reportMissingType != null) reportMissingType(expr);
     return provider.dynamicType;
   }