I think loose comparisons should be implemented via a new method like Type::looseCompare(Type $type): BooleanType. That will allow us to answer all possible situations.

I see.

This implies we also need to implement Type::strictCompare($type): BooleanType in the same PR, because atm InitializerExprTypeResolver->resolveEqualType() is calling into InitializerExprTypeResolver->resolveIdenticalType().

moving the code arround will touch stuff already changed in #1634, so I will wait until #1634 is merged before starting the refactoring.

Strict compare method isn't needed, that's already basically isSuperTypeOf, if you see how Identical is implemented in MutatingScope. I don't know of any bug that would suggest lack of something in this area.

ok, just to get it right: I need to implement/test all types compared against all other types (+itself), right?

Yes. It's PITA for sure 😊

If you're going to pursue this, submit an implementation in one or two types first before fully diving in, to make sure we're on the same page. For example StringType::looseCompare() has to account for:

• Any UnionType
• Any IntersectionType
• Against any object it's false
• Looks like against any array it's also false
• To correctly answer when it's non-empty-string, non-falsy-string, numeric-string...

The UnionType/IntersectionType is probably going to be solved similarly as accepts()/isAcceptedBy() / isSuperTypeOf()/isSubTypeOf(), meaning we're gonna need another method counterpart in CompoundType.

ok thanks.

before bringing up the first looseCompare type, I will give other open PRs of mine some love, which are not blocked by external changes - so we can clean up the pull request queue first

Hi, I'm cleaning up old and stale PRs. Please send a new PR if you're still interested, thanks.