After Optional[str] == 'literal', infer that it's not optional

[gvanrossum]

Example:

def f(a: Optional[str]) -> str:
 if a == '<string>': return a[1:-1]
 else: return ''

With --strict-optional, this produces an error:

error: Value of type None is not indexable

It would be nice if mypy understood that a is a string if this == returns True.

[ddfisher]

We should probably fix this more generally with Unions:

def f(a: Union[int, str]) -> str
 if a == '<string>': return a # mypy should understand that a must be a string here
 else: return str(a)

Are we okay with saying that equality must imply some sort of type equivalence? (In particular, that a == b implies a is either a super- or sub-class of b.)

[gvanrossum]

I was more thinking that the join of the two types should not be object.

We should carefully introduce and test such a change because I expect it'll cause some noise in various large projects (most of which I expect to be questionable code in those projects, but some might be due to our rules needing some exception, and either wait it'll take a while to sort it all out).

FWIW the same rule should apply to x in c and x not in c -- the type of x and the type of c's items must have a non-trivial join.

[dmoisset]

Asuming that on a == 'text', a is string is somewhat unsafe. There's a slight danger given that == can be redefined, so I could have a class with an __eq__ method that considers itself equal to string but doesn't have other string properties. A similar problem occurs with "in" given that it depends on __eq__.

The only operator where I think this could safely be done is "is" and "is not", but that doesn't cover the example.

[rwbarton]

In general that assumption is unsafe, but here a has type Optional[str] = Union[None, str] and it's quite reasonable to assume that == will not be redefined on None.