Programs like
```
after : ({} -> a), ({} -> b) -> ({} -> b)
fx = after (\{} -> {}) \{} -> if Bool.true then fx {} else {}
```
are legal because they always decay to functions, even if they may not
look like functions syntactically. Rather than using a syntactic check
to check for illegally-recursive functions, we should only perform such
checks after we know the types of values.
Closes#4291
Every type can have `Eq.isEq` derived for it, as long as
- it does not transitively contain a function
- it does not transitively contain a floating point value
- it does not transitively contain an opaque type that does not support
`Eq`
Previously we would construct the shapes of unions used in the pattern
tree for exhaustiveness checking using the type of the branch patterns,
rather than the type of the condition variable. Clearly we want to
always use the condition variable, otherwise some branches will be
seen as exhaustive, when they are not!
To do this, we now index into the condition variable while refying the
patterns to build the tree for exhaustiveness checking.
Closes#4068
We have this idea of "rigid optional" fields to annotate record fields
that must necessarily be optional. That avoids the admission of programs
we cannot faithfully compile, like
```
f : {a: Str, b ? U64}
f = {a: "b", b: 1}
```
We want to lose the rigidity restriction when a generalized symbol is
used as at a specialized site; for example it should be possible to call
`f : {x ? Str} -> {}` with both `{}` and `{x : Str}`, neither of which
have a rigidly optional field unless they were to be annotated.
Prior to this commit we would loosen the rigidity restriction upon
specialization of a generalized type at a use site. However, what we
really want to do is apply the loosening during calculation of
generalization. The reason is that otherwise, we must make types that
would be ground (like `{x ? Str} -> {}`) generalized just for the sake
of the optional field annotation. But since the rigidity constraint is
irrelevant after an annotated body has been checked, we can loosen the
rigidity restriction then, which conveniently happens to coincide with
the generalization calculation.
Closes#3955
