In #3352 an optimization to transform `ra = .field` into
```
ra = \#rcd -[ra]-> #rcd.field
```
rather than
```
__ra1 = \#rcd -[__ra1] -> #rcd.field
ra = LambdaSet { __ra1 }
```
was introduced. However, this optimization is not correct when `ra =
.field` is defined as a toplevel thunk, for in such situations we
indeed want the thunk `ra` to return the lambda set it resolves to,
rather than repointing at itself.
Besides reverting this change, another option would be to convert
accessors into closures before translation of Can to IR. However, this
complicates the translation algorithm more than it already is, and I'd
like to avoid additional special-cases.
Closes#4606
If a specialization of an ability member has a lambda set that is not
reflected in the unspecialized lambda sets of the member's prototype
signature, then the specialization lambda set is deemed to be immaterial
to the specialization lambda set mapping, and we don't need to associate
it with a particular region from the prototype signature.
This can happen when an opaque contains functions that are some specific
than the generalized prototype signature; for example, when we are
defining a custom impl for an opaque with functions.
Addresses a bug found in 8c3158c3e0
With fixpoint-fixing, we don't want to re-unify type variables that were
just fixed, because doing so may change their shapes in ways that we
explicitly just set them up not to be changed (as fixpoint-fixing
clobbers type variable contents).
However, this restriction need only apply when we re-unify two type
variables that were both involved in the same fixpoint-fixing cycle. If
we have a type variable T that was involved in fixpoint-fixing, and we
unify it with U that wasn't, we know that the $U \notin \bar{T}$, where
$\bar{T}$ is the recursive closure of T. In these cases, we do want to
permit the usual in-band unification of $T \sim U$.
