[parser] Rewritable expressions should not be valid variable references

[parser] Rewritable expressions should not be valid variable references

This patch restores the status of rewritable expressions, which
were not considered valid variable references before CL 2126233002,
regardless of the type of the wrapped expression.

R=mstarzinger@chromium.org, verwaest@chromium.org
BUG=
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/24291c326b3842abf9e358193e32306c45656dd1
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#37864}

[nickie, 2016-07-18 12:57:13]

The CQ bit was checked by nikolaos@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-18 12:57:17]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[Michael Starzinger, 2016-07-18 13:08:04]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2158853002/diff/1/src/ast/ast.cc
File src/ast/ast.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2158853002/diff/1/src/ast/ast.cc#newcode131
src/ast/ast.cc:131: if (IsRewritableExpression()) return false;
I am confused, how can the below predicate return true for a
RewritableExpression?

[Michael Starzinger, 2016-07-18 13:10:13]

LGTM (with both eyes closed).

https://codereview.chromium.org/2158853002/diff/1/src/ast/ast.cc
File src/ast/ast.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2158853002/diff/1/src/ast/ast.cc#newcode131
src/ast/ast.cc:131: if (IsRewritableExpression()) return false;
On 2016/07/18 13:08:04, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> I am confused, how can the below predicate return true for a
> RewritableExpression?

Ah, now I see, the IsFoo predicates actually special case for
RewritableExpression ... oh god ...

[nickie, 2016-07-18 13:13:18]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2158853002/diff/1/src/ast/ast.cc
File src/ast/ast.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2158853002/diff/1/src/ast/ast.cc#newcode131
src/ast/ast.cc:131: if (IsRewritableExpression()) return false;
On 2016/07/18 13:08:04, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> I am confused, how can the below predicate return true for a
> RewritableExpression?

That's the point.  They never should be.  They never were before CL 2126233002. 
The default for Expression was false:

https://codereview.chromium.org/2126233002/diff/180001/src/ast/ast.h#oldcode300

and that CL changed it:

https://codereview.chromium.org/2126233002/diff/180001/src/ast/ast.cc#newcode136

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-18 13:26:21]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-18 13:26:21]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Toon Verwaest, 2016-07-19 11:21:27]

lgtm, great find! Thanks for fixing.

[nickie, 2016-07-19 11:25:30]

The CQ bit was checked by nikolaos@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-19 11:25:39]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-19 11:27:41]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-19 11:30:42]

Description was changed from

==========
[parser] Rewritable expressions should not be valid variable references

This patch restores the status of rewritable expressions, which
were not considered valid variable references before CL 2126233002,
regardless of the type of the wrapped expression.

R=mstarzinger@chromium.org, verwaest@chromium.org
BUG=
LOG=N
==========

to

==========
[parser] Rewritable expressions should not be valid variable references

This patch restores the status of rewritable expressions, which
were not considered valid variable references before CL 2126233002,
regardless of the type of the wrapped expression.

R=mstarzinger@chromium.org, verwaest@chromium.org
BUG=
LOG=N

Committed: https://crrev.com/24291c326b3842abf9e358193e32306c45656dd1
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#37864}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-19 11:30:43]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/24291c326b3842abf9e358193e32306c45656dd1
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#37864}