Elaborate via either === (homogeneous equality) or ~=~ (heterogeneous
equality) both of which are synonyms for Equal. This is to get the Idris
1 behaviour that equality is homogeneous by default to reduce the need
for type annotations, but heterogeneous if that doesn't work.
This was left over from Blodwen (where it was also wrong :)) but the way
we apply metavariables now means we don't need to do anything fancy when
unelaborating them for pretty printing.
This has shown up a problem with 'case' which is hard to fix - since it
works by generating a function with the appropriate type, it's hard to
ensure that let bindings computational behaviour is propagated while
maintaining appropriate dependencies between arguments and keeping the
let so that it only evaluates once. So, I've disabled the computational
behaviour of 'let' inside case blocks. I hope this isn't a big
inconvenience (there are workarounds if it's ever needed, anyway).
Need to add by full name, due to ordering of loading (the name it's
attached to may not be resolved yet!). This doesn't seem to cause any
performance problems but we can revisit if it does.
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)
Small change needed to fix one - assume given implicits which are of the
form x@_ arise from types. It's a bit of a hack but I don't think
there's any need for anything more complicated.
Only valid if unifying the pattern at the end doesn't solve any
metavariables. Also when elaborating applications of fromInteger etc to
constants on the LHS we need to be in expression mode, then reduce the
result later.
This was a slight difference from Blodwen that wasn't accounted for -
there might be lets in the nested environment, so when building the
expanded application type, make sure we go under them
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)
