Until now namespaces were stored as (reversed) lists of strings.
It led to:
* confusing code where we work on the representation rather than say
what we mean (e.g. using `isSuffixOf` to mean `isParentOf`)
* potentially introducing errors by not respecting the invariant cf.
bug report #616 (but also name generation in the scheme backend
although that did not lead to bugs as it was self-consistent AFAICT)
* ad-hoc code to circumvent overlapping interface implementations when
showing / pretty-printing namespaces
This introduces a Namespace newtype containing non-empty lists of
strings. Nested namespaces are still stored in reverse order but the
exposed interface aims to support programming by saying what we mean
(`isParentOf`, `isApproximationOf`, `X <.> Y` computes to `X.Y`, etc.)
irrespective of the underlying representation.
Main change
===========
The main change is to the type of function dealing with an untouched
segment of the local scope. e.g.
```
weak : {outer, vars : _} -> (ns : List Name) ->
tm (outer ++ inner) -> tm (outer ++ ns ++ inner)
```
Instead we now write
```
weak : SizeOf ns -> tm (outer ++ inner) -> tm (outer ++ ns ++ inner)
```
meaning that we do not need the values of `outer`, `inner` and `ns`
at runtime. Instead we only demand a `SizeOf ns` which is a `Nat`
together with an (erased) proof that `ns` is of that length.
Other modifications
===================
Quadratic behaviour
-------------------
A side effect of this refactor is the removal of two sources of
quadratic behaviour. They typically arise in a situation where
work is done on a scope of the form
```
outer ++ done ++ ns ++ inner
```
When `ns` is non-empty, some work is performed and then the variable
is moved to the pile of things we are `done` with. This leads to
recursive calls of the form `f done` -> `f (done ++ [v])` leading
to a cost quadratic in the size of `ns`.
Now that we only care about `SizeOf done`, the recursive call is
(once all the runtime irrelevant content is erased) for the form
`f n` -> `f (S n)`!
More runtime irrelevance
------------------------
In some places we used to rely on a list of names `vars` being
available. However once we only care about the length of `vars`,
the fact it is not available is not a limitation.
For instance a `SizeOf vars` can be reconstructed from an environment
assigning values to `vars` even if `vars` is irrelevant. Indeed the
size of the environment is the same as that of `vars`.
For Void and Either
This is because I ended up using them elsewhere, so why not include them in the stdlib.
Also expose left/rightInjective functions, as are used in the DecEq proofs.
The ports are rather straight forward and I have purposefully written
the documentation to be beginner friendly.
Note, I have diverged from Idris1 over the naming of the projection
functions to make them consistent with `Pair` and `DPair`.
Following a fairly detailed discussion on slack, the feeling is
generally that it's better to have a single interface. While precision
is nice, it doesn't appear to buy us anything here. If that turns out to
be wrong, or limiting somehow, we can revisit it later. Also:
- it's easier for backend authors if the type of IO operations is
slightly less restrictive. For example, if it's in HasIO, that limits
alternative implementations, which might be awkward for some
alternative back ends.
- it's one less extra detail to learn. This is minor, but there needs to
be a clear advantage if there's more detail to learn.
- It is difficult to think of an underlying type that can't have a Monad
instance (I have personally never encountered one - if they turns out
to exist, again, we can revisit!)
