The compiler should only report diagnostics for
comparisons over builtins and identity-less types,
other incompatibilities should be reported
via inspections.
It's ok that in `equalityChecksOnIntegerTypes`
instead of `EQUALITY_NOT_APPLICABLE_WARNING` we get
`EQUALITY_NOT_APPLICABLE`, because
`ProperEqualityChecksInBuilderInferenceCalls`
is already active by default.
This change also replaces the notion of a representative superclass
with the least upper bound.
This makes complex types like
intersection/flexible transparent to
RULES1-based compatibility checks.
One way to look at it is to think
that this is an automatic way of handling
type parameters: automatic picking of
"interesting" bounds, and checking them against one another.
Note that `TypeIntersector.intersectTypes`
for `Int` and `T` where `T` is a type parameter
may return both `{Int & T}` or `null`
depending on `T`-s bounds. At the same time,
for type parameters `T` and `K` it will
always return `{T & K}`.
`ConeTypeIntersector.intersectTypes`, on the
other hand, will always return `{Int & T}`
irrespectively of the bounds. Meaning, the two
intersectors differ in corner cases.
`lowerBoundIfFlexible` call in `isLiterallyTypeParameter` is backed by
the `equalityOfFlexibleTypeParameters` test.
^KT-35134 #fixed-in-k2
^KT-22499 #fixed-in-k2
^KT-46383 #fixed-in-k2
FE1.0 only reports SENSELESS_COMPARISON if one of the operand is `null`.
This change makes FIR reports also in case one of the operand has type
`Nothing?`.
In addition, fix handling of type alias in ConeTypeContext#isNullableType
In order to make resolution still work for members not available from
`Nothing`, we track the type without `Nothing?` and use that for
resolution instead.
To do so, inside the root cause of inapplicable candidate errors,
we will record expected/actual type of receiver, if any.
That will help identifying inapplicable calls on nullable receiver.
Nikolay Lunyak