Historically bind() used to be a separate instruction. With a series of
refactoring it became a utility function but after recent code changes
it does not provide any valuable abstraction / help. On the contrary -
it can be seen as a performance problem (forces unnecessary comparison to
`NO_CHANGE` during change detection).
PR Close#32489
i18n instructions create text nodes dynamically and save them between bindings and the expando block in `LView`. e.g., they try to create the following order in `LView`.
```
| -- elements -- | -- bindings -- | -- dynamic i18n text -- | -- expando (dirs, injectors) -- |
```
Each time a new text node is created, it is pushed to the end of the array and the `expandoStartIndex` marker is incremented, so the section begins slightly later. This happens in `allocExpando`.
This is fine if no directives have been created yet. The end of the array will be in the "dynamic text node" section.
| -- elements -- | -- bindings -- | -- dynamic i18n text -- |
However, this approach doesn't work if dynamic text nodes are created after directives are matched (for example when the directive uses host bindings). In that case, there are already directives and injectors saved in the "expando" section. So pushing to the end of `LView` actually pushes after the expando section. What we get is this:
```
| -- elements -- | -- bindings -- | -- dynamic i18n text -- | -- expando -- | -- dynamic i18n text-- |
```
In this case, the `expandoStartIndex` shouldn't be incremented because we are not inserting anything before the expando section (it's now after the expando section). But because it is incremented in the code right now, it's now pointing to an index in the middle of the expando section.
This PR fixes that so that we only increment the `expandoStartIndex` if nothing was pushed into the expando section.
FW-978 #resolve
PR Close#28424
