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
Don't use the type of a scrutinee to restrict possible patterns, because
it might have been refined by a Rig0 argument that has a missing case.
Instead, generate all the possible cases and check that the generated
ones are impossible (there's no obvious change in performance)
We can't refine by a name in Rig0 because we can't assume it covers all
possibilities, so only refine by them at the end, at which point we
check that there's only one case left (otherwise we have to match on it,
which is not allowed for an erased thing)
