There are two different forms of types intestion:
1. Type parameters with multiple bounds
2. Smart casts
The problem was that when member scope of type intersection contained
effective duplicates and that lead to overload resolution ambiguity in
strange cases like `x.hashCode()`
For first type we do effectively the same thing as when building member
scope for class extending several interfaces: group all descriptors by
both-way-overridability relation and then choose most-specific in each
group.
For smart casts we do basically the same thing but with special
treatments:
1. From all descriptors that _equal_ to most specific we choose
the one that works without smartcast if possible (i.e. we choose first from candidates list)
2. If smart-cast value seems to be unstable we use only member scope
of receiver type + all descriptors from smart cast possible types
that has incompatible signature. If we'd include all of them and
choose one as more specific, and it would lead to false
SMART_CAST_IMPOSIBLE (see test unstableSmartCast.kt)
#KT-3996 Fixed
#KT-10315 Fixed
- locals win
- unary calls to plus/minus are not supported in favor of unaryPlus/unaryMinus
- unqualified nested classes are temporarily reported as unresolved
- function without receiver win against extension function
- explicit import win against star import
This allows to fix some cases when there is a difference between explicit and short reference to default object
Fix shorten reference, optimize imports and import insert helper for default objects
ShortenReferences always transforms default object references to shorter form for now
Fix DescriptorUtils#getFqName() for default objects (affects test data mostly)
Fix DescriptorUtils#getImportableDescriptor()
The fqname of class should be clear from code
Example: can't shorten A.Default.B.Default.C to A.B.C
Also fixes problem when nested class of enum class could be accessed via enum entry
This is needed because different modules/libraries may define classes with the same FqNames, which may be identical or slightly different.
Such classes must be considered equal, because your dependencies may rely on different packagings of the same codebase, and the classes there will be distinct though identical
(think intellij-core vs idea-full).
Denis Zharkov