The previous implementation was using the following heuristic
```lean
-- heuristic: use non-dependent arrows only if possible for whole group to avoid
-- noisy mix like `(α : Type) → Type → (γ : Type) → ...`.
let dependent := curNames.any fun n => hasIdent n.getId stxBody
```
The result produced by this heuristic was **not** producing an
accidental name capture, but I agree
it was confusing to have `∀ (a : True), ∃ a, a = a : Prop` instead of
`True → ∃ a, a = a : Prop` since there is no dependency.
AFAICT, all examples affected by this commit have a better output now.
cc @digma0 @kha
This feature produced counterintuitive behavior and confused users.
See discussion at #770.
As pointed out by @tydeu, it is not too much work to write `Id.run <|`
before the `do` when we want to use the `do` notation in pure code.
closes#770
After this commit, we have to use an explicit `discard` in code such as
```
def g (x : Nat) : IO Nat := ...
def f (x : Nat) : IO Unit := do
discard <| g x -- type error without the `discard`
IO.println x
```
Motivation: prevent users from making mistakes such as
```
def f (xs : Array Nat) : IO Unit := do
xs.set! 0 1
IO.println xs
```
when they meant to write
```
def f (xs : Array Nat) : IO Unit := do
let xs := xs.set! 0 1
IO.println xs
```
@Kha Could you please double check these modifications.
I added a no-op for `checkRbpLt`. It is used at the `Sort` and `Type`
parsers.
As I described in previous commits, the `checkRBPGreater` comment and
implementation were misleading. It was actually succeeding when the
rbp was less than or equal to the given parameter. So, it was renamed
to `checkRbpLe`. So, is the depArrow parenthesizer ok? I did not check.
I updated the PPRoundtrip.lean.expected.out to make sure the tests
succeed, but we should revise it if there is a problem with the
modifications at Parenthesizer.lean
