Signatures of intersection/union types properties

Consider next example:

interface A{
    f:string;
    set_f(val:string) : void;
    get_f() : string;
}

interface B{
    f:number;
    set_f(val:number) : void;
    get_f() : number;
}

let n:number;
let str:string

let first : A&B;
first.f = n; // error, as f has type number&string. Probably OK, but probably it should be number|string, to be symmetric with set_f function.
first.f = str; // error, as f has type number&string.
n = first.f;
str = first.f;

first.set_f(n);
first.set_f(str);
n = first.get_f(); // error, typescript prefer to use first signature () => string. Shouldn't it be string&number.
str = first.get_f();

let second : A|B;
second.f = n; // Ops, no error! But it should be at least string&number here
second.f = str;// Ops, no error! But it should be at least string&number here
n = second.f; // error, typescript prefer to use first signature string. It should be string|number
str = second.f;// Ops, no error, typescript prefer to use first signature string. It should be string|number

second.set_f(n); //error, lack a call signature. It's really good, but better if it would be (string&number) => void
second.set_f(str); //error, lack a call signature. 
n = second.get_f(); // error, cool, typescript was able to correctly infer result as string|number
str = second.get_f();// error, cool, typescript was able to correctly infer result as string|number

With #9167 additional to previous was added preserving readonly flag for intersection. Should't readonly flag be reset if any of intersection member has no such flag? As intersection should extend possibilities of type, and never narrow down it.

复现 issue 中的 A/B 交集和联合示例，包括 #9167 之后提到的 readonly 情况。首先跟踪交集和联合的属性类型与方法签名是如何解析的；当对赋值、返回类型和 readonly 保留的预期行为达成一致，并由相关检查覆盖时，即视为完成。