No candidates listed in ambiguous overload messages on member access

[cameel]

When there's more than one matching overload for an unqualified function call, compiler lists all matching candidates. This is not the case when the function is called on an object.

Example - error for member access

contract C {
    function f(uint16) public {}
    function f(uint32) public {}

    function test() public {
        this.f(uint16(1));
    }
}

Error: Member "f" not unique after argument-dependent lookup in contract C.
 --> test.sol:6:9:
  |
6 |         this.f(uint16(1));
  |         ^^^^^^

Example - error for unqualified access

contract C {
    function f(uint16) public {}
    function f(uint32) public {}

    function test() public {
        f(uint16(1));
    }
}

Error: No unique declaration found after argument-dependent lookup.
 --> test.sol:6:9:
  |
6 |         f(uint16(1));
  |         ^
Note: Candidate:
 --> test.sol:2:5:
  |
2 |     function f(uint16) public {}
  |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note: Candidate:
 --> test.sol:3:5:
  |
3 |     function f(uint32) public {}
  |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[chancehudson]

Is something like this supposed to be allowed?

contract C {
    function f(uint16) public {}
    function f(uint32) public {}

    function test() public {
        f(uint16(1));
    }
}

I'm trying to use a pattern like this but can't get past the compiler error. Is the overload selection ambiguous because a uint16 can be cast to a uint32?

[cameel]

No, this overload is currently ambiguous. See #1256.