Update docs reference intersection/union types spec

Author: EugeneFlesselle

compiler/src/dotty/tools/dotc/core/TypeComparer.scala

@@ -2767,19 +2767,10 @@ class TypeComparer(@constructorOnly initctx: Context) extends ConstraintHandling
   }
 
   /** Try to distribute `&` inside type, detect and handle conflicts
+   *  Note that an intersection cannot be pushed into an applied type, see tests/neg/i23435-min.
    *  @pre !(tp1 <: tp2) && !(tp2 <:< tp1) -- these cases were handled before
    */
   private def distributeAnd(tp1: Type, tp2: Type): Type = tp1 match {
-    case tp1 @ AppliedType(tycon1, args1) if false =>
-      tp2 match {
-        case AppliedType(tycon2, args2)
-        if tycon1.typeSymbol == tycon2.typeSymbol && tycon1 =:= tycon2 =>
-          val jointArgs = glbArgs(args1, args2, tycon1.typeParams)
-          if (jointArgs.forall(_.exists)) (tycon1 & tycon2).appliedTo(jointArgs)
-          else NoType
-        case _ =>
-          NoType
-      }
     case tp1: RefinedType =>
       // opportunistically merge same-named refinements
       // this does not change anything semantically (i.e. merging or not merging
@@ -2818,8 +2809,7 @@ class TypeComparer(@constructorOnly initctx: Context) extends ConstraintHandling
   }
 
   /** Try to distribute `|` inside type, detect and handle conflicts
-   *  Note that, unlike for `&`, a disjunction cannot be pushed into
-   *  a refined or applied type. Example:
+   *  Note that a disjunction cannot be pushed into a refined or applied type. Example:
    *
    *     List[T] | List[U] is not the same as List[T | U].
    *

docs/_docs/reference/new-types/intersection-types-spec.md

@@ -46,11 +46,6 @@ A & B <: B       A & B <: A
 In another word, `A & B` is the same type as `B & A`, in the sense that the two types
 have the same values and are subtypes of each other.
 
-If `C` is a co- or contravariant type constructor, then `C[A] & C[B]` can be simplified using the following rules:
-
-- If `C` is covariant, `C[A] & C[B] ~> C[A & B]`
-- If `C` is contravariant, `C[A] & C[B] ~> C[A | B]`
-
 When `C` is covariant, `C[A & B] <: C[A] & C[B]` can be derived:
 
 ```

docs/_docs/reference/new-types/union-types-spec.md

@@ -46,6 +46,30 @@ case _: (A | B) => ...
   A & (B | C) =:= A & B | A & C
   ```
 
+When `C` is covariant, `C[A] | C[B] <: C[A | B]` can be derived:
+
+```
+    A <: A                  B <: B
+  ----------               ---------
+  A <: A | B               B <: A | B
+----------------         ----------------
+C[A] <: C[A | B]         C[B] <: C[A | B]
+-----------------------------------------
+      C[A] | C[B] <: C[A | B]
+```
+
+When `C` is contravariant, `C[A] | C[B] <: C[A & B]` can be derived:
+
+```
+    A <: A                    B <: B
+  ----------                ----------
+  A & B <: A                A & B <: B
+----------------         ----------------
+C[A] <: C[A & B]         C[B] <: C[A & B]
+-----------------------------------------
+      C[A] | C[B] <: C[A & B]
+```
+
 From these rules it follows that the _least upper bound_ (LUB) of a set of types
 is the union of these types. This replaces the
 [definition of least upper bound in the Scala 2 specification](https://www.scala-lang.org/files/archive/spec/2.13/03-types.html#least-upper-bounds-and-greatest-lower-bounds).