Are we in a secondary constructor after the this constructor call?
To selectively allow enrichment in patterns, where other kinds of implicit conversions are not allowed
TODO: The "sticky modes" are EXPRmode, PATTERNmode, TYPEmode.
TODO: The "sticky modes" are EXPRmode, PATTERNmode, TYPEmode. To mimick the sticky mode behavior, when captain stickyfingers comes around we need to propagate those modes but forget the other context modes which were once mode bits; those being so far the ones listed here.
Are we typechecking pattern alternatives.
Are we typechecking pattern alternatives. Formerly ALTmode.
Are we retypechecking arguments independently from the function applied to them? See Typer.tryTypedApply
TODO - iron out distinction/overlap with SecondTry.
Are we in return position? Formerly RETmode.
For method context: were returns encountered?
Is this context (enclosed in) a constructor call? (the call to the super or self constructor in the first line of a constructor.) In such a context, the object's fields should not be in scope
Are star patterns allowed.
Are star patterns allowed. Formerly STARmode.
Are we typing the "super" in a superclass constructor call super.<init>.
Are we typing the "super" in a superclass constructor call super.<init>. Formerly SUPERCONSTRmode.
Are unapplied type constructors allowed here? Formerly HKmode.