Handle creating ParameterMirrors for the parameters of forwarding constructors.

runtime/vm/parser.cc

Index: runtime/vm/parser.cc
diff --git a/runtime/vm/parser.cc b/runtime/vm/parser.cc
index 797b5235d630cf2c29a9bef0ad755aaecc19978b..1488e5f9527fa152f6077e05f9634ca4eca46c20 100644
--- a/runtime/vm/parser.cc
+++ b/runtime/vm/parser.cc
@@ -2457,8 +2457,7 @@ SequenceNode* Parser::MakeImplicitConstructor(const Function& func) {
   // expressions and then calls the respective super constructor with
   // the same name and number of parameters.
   ArgumentListNode* forwarding_args = NULL;
-  if (current_class().is_mixin_app_alias() ||
-      current_class().IsMixinApplication()) {
+  if (current_class().IsMixinApplication()) {
     // At this point we don't support forwarding constructors
     // that have optional parameters because we don't know the default
     // values of the optional parameters. We would have to compile the super
@@ -9029,7 +9028,7 @@ bool Parser::ResolveIdentInLocalScope(intptr_t ident_pos,
   // If the current class is the result of a mixin application, we must
   // use the class scope of the class from which the function originates.
   Class& cls = Class::Handle(isolate());
-  if (!current_class().IsMixinApplication()) {
+  if (!current_class().IsAnonymousMixinApplication()) {

[hausner, 2014/03/27 17:10:27]

I think this is wrong. The scoping is the same whether the mixin is anonymous or
named. You can add a test if you like.

OTOH, maybe I don't understand what the difference is between a mixin
application class and an anoymous mixin application class. Regis can comment if
I'm wrong.

[regis, 2014/03/27 18:23:58]

I think the change is correct. If the current class is a mixin application
alias, we should use it to resolve locals, such as its type parameters.

The confusion comes from the fact that this cl is changing names to match the
spec. However, the new names do not match the comments in the code anymore. This
is bad.

Before the change we had:
mixin application
mixin application alias

With this change, they become:
anonymous mixin application
mixin application

But the comments still refer to the previous terms.

I am not sure if it is worth using the terms of the spec, which does not know
anything about the implementation. I'd rather stick with mixin application and
mixin application alias, which makes IsAnonymousMixinApplication a bad name and
mostly reverts this cl.

See how I would fix this in object.cc

     cls = current_class().raw();
   } else {
     cls = parsed_function()->function().origin();