Consider call `foo(bar())` where bar() returns some type variable `T`;
We had a contract that call `bar` can be completed without completion
of foo (type variables can be inferred from the current context) if `T`
has at least one proper lower constraint (ProperType <: T).
Indeed, new constraints can be added only as upper ones, so there is
no need to grow constraint system.
Unfortunately, we have Exact annotation that is used on return type of
elvis. Now, consider the following situation:
```
fun foo(a: Any) {}
fun bar(e: T): @Exact T
foo(bar("str"))
```
Here, because of Exact annotation, constraint with `Any`-type will be
added as an equal one => our prerequisite that there will be no new
lower constraints is false. `bar("str")` is inferred to Any in OI,
this seems conceptually wrong, but it's another topic of discussion.
In NI we can't just grow constraint system to use outer call because
of another important use-case:
```
fun <T> generic(i: Inv<T>) {}
fun test(a: Inv<*>?, b: Inv<*>) {
generic(a ?: b)
}
```
Common constraint system for these two calls can't be solved
(fundamentally) for this example, only if (a ?: b) and generic(result)
are computed separately.
So, to mitigate initial issue, we'll grow constraint system only if
there is at least one non-proper constraint.
#KT-31969 Fixed
There is added a new service named `SubstitutingScopeProvider`, that
provides factory that creates captured types and approximator for them.
In OI they are the same as before commit, for NI they are empty, because
that approximation interferes with NI algorithm
That service is injected into function descriptors and property descriptors
and used for creating `SubstitutingScope` with correct services
Also there is changed time when we approximate captured types in NI
(after all call checkers)
#KT-25290 Fixed
Consider common supertype of `S` and `Nothing`, where `S` has nullable
upper bound or it's flexible. Before the fix, result was `S?`, which
is correct but too conservative. Now, we'll preserve nullability of
resulting type if it's already nullable.
This happened because we were failing to find path of not-nullable
types from `Nothing` to `S`, which should obviously exists by
semantics of Nothing
Mikhail Zarechenskiy