[WIP] Fix #4986 Support implicitNotFound in Method Def.

[tOverney]

Still at least two open issues/wip:

• Unlike in 2.13, the message from @implicitNotFound is not valided to check if the $xx actually exist in the scope and emit a warning.
• The resolution of those $xx when emitting the error is not correct/too simple.

[dottybot]

Hello, and thank you for opening this PR! 🎉

All contributors have signed the CLA, thank you! ❤️

Commit Messages

We want to keep history, but for that to actually be useful we have
some rules on how to format our commit messages (relevant xkcd).

Please stick to these guidelines for commit messages:

1. Separate subject from body with a blank line
2. When fixing an issue, start your commit message with Fix #<ISSUE-NBR>:
3. Limit the subject line to 72 characters
4. Capitalize the subject line
5. Do not end the subject line with a period
6. Use the imperative mood in the subject line ("Add" instead of "Added")
7. Wrap the body at 80 characters
8. Use the body to explain what and why vs. how

adapted from https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit

Have an awesome day! ☀️

[smarter]

@tOverney Good news! :) #8637 was just merged which means you can call paramSymss on the symbol of a method to get the symbols of its parameters, and thus get the annotations on these parameters. This should make it possible to put @implicitNotFound on the parameter name instead of the parameter type like in Scala 2.

[b-studios]

Since #4986 is closed, I am closing this draft PR as well. @tOverney please let me know if we should revive it.

[tOverney]

@b-studios no, I should have closed it when @prolativ opened the pr;
Sorry @smarter I wasn't able to jump back in that PR last year :(