It's a big patch, but the summary is that it's okay to use a pattern in
an erased position if either:
- the pattern can also be solved by unification (this is the same as
'dot patterns' for matching on non-constructor forms)
- the argument position is detaggable w.r.t. non-erased arguments, which
means we can tell which pattern it is without pattern matching
The second case, in particular, means we can still pattern match on
proof terms which turn out to be irrelevant, especially Refl.
Fixes#178
