* not necessarily the case for declaration providers (e.g. the IDE declaration provider hitting the index without caching).
 *
 * However, since symbol names providers may not be able to compute name sets per their contract, we may have to fall back to the
 * [declaration provider][org.jetbrains.kotlin.analysis.providers.KotlinDeclarationProvider].
 *

            // to get the combined scope. A base declared member scope with Java enhancement doesn't exist, unfortunately.
            DeclaredMemberScopeKind.COMBINED -> {
                // The static scope contains inner classes, so we need to exclude them from the non-static scope to avoid duplicates.

        /**
         * If we have a property with the same name, avoid dropping qualifiers makes it reference a property with the same name e.g.,
         *    package my.component
         *    class foo { .. }  // A
         *    ..
         *    fun test() {
         *      val foo = ..    // B
         *      my.component.foo::class.java  // If we drop `my.component`, it will reference `B` instead of `A`

        }
        else -> arguments.any { typeProjection ->
            // A star projection type (lazily) built by type parameter will be yet another type with a star projection,
            // resulting in stack overflow if we keep checking allowed type parameter descriptors
            !typeProjection.isStarProjection &&
                    typeProjection.type.hasReferenceOtherThan(allowedTypeParameterDescriptors)
        }
    }
}

                }
            }
        }

        if (this is FirImplicitInvokeCall) {

            // If we have a PSI expression like `Foo.Bar.Baz()` and try to resolve `Bar` part,
            // and the only FIR that we have for that PSI is an implicit invoke call, that means that
            // `Foo.Bar` is definitely not a property access - otherwise it would have had its own FIR.