feat: implement basic support for c# params

[MeikelLP]

This PR brings basic functionality for C# method params in the source generator. Basically supporting methods like this:

[LuaMember]
public static LuaTable ParamsMethod(params LuaValue[] arguments)
{
    var table = new LuaTable(arguments.Length, arguments.Length);
    for (int i = 0; i < arguments.Length; i++)
    {
        // lua starts at 1
        table[i + 1] = arguments[i];
    }

    return table;
}

I tested this use case and tried to not break anything else while doing it. I cannot confirm that all use cases are covered. I will try other use cases too in the future. Please see this as a proof of work and not a fully fledged feature.

I'm implementing this because my Lua integration needs this feature. I'm testing this PR in my project and will apply further fixes if necessary.

[MeikelLP]

@akeit0 I saw you are actively working on the v0.5 branch. I implemented this PR also on the v0.5 branch.

Feel free to check it out: https://github.com/MeikelLP/Lua-CSharp/tree/feature/params-v5
You could also merge it into v0.5 and fix any issues that might arise from that on :)

[akeit0]

It seems good.
But we need to consider that the cancellationtoken coming last is incompatible with params...

[MeikelLP]

@akeit0 I saw you released 0.5

Is this PR obsolete? How do you do params now? I tried the following but get an LUACS006:

[LuaObject]
partial class ObjWrapperLuaCsharp
{
    public string? Function { get; set; }
    public LuaValue[]? Arguments { get; set; }

    [LuaMember("yield")]
    public void yield(string function, params LuaValue[] args)
    {
        Function = function;
        Arguments = args[1..];
    }
}

[akeit0]

I apologize for leaving your PR unaddressed.
Regarding this, I was hesitant because it would be difficult to change the specifications later.
My current thinking is that ReadOnlySpan or ReadOnlyMemory would be more appropriate than an array. However, in this case, params would not be necessary.
But I am not entirely sure.

[MeikelLP]

I'm fine with closing this PR. It was a simple implementation back when I needed it.

Just update me when you implemented it :)