+* In lookupIdSubst, we *must* look up the Id in the in-scope set, because
+ it may contain non-trivial changes. Example:
+ (/\a. \x:a. ...x...) Int
+ We extend the TvSubstEnv with [a |-> Int]; but x's unique does not change
+ so we only extend the in-scope set. Then we must look up in the in-scope
+ set when we find the occurrence of x.
+
+* The requirement to look up the Id in the in-scope set means that we
+ must NOT take no-op short cut in the case the substitution is empty.
+ We must still look up every Id in the in-scope set.
+
+* (However, we don't need to do so for expressions found in the IdSubst
+ itself, whose range is assumed to be correct wrt the in-scope set.)
+
+Why do we make a different choice for the IdSubstEnv than the TvSubstEnv?
+
+* For Ids, we change the IdInfo all the time (e.g. deleting the
+ unfolding), and adding it back later, so using the TyVar convention
+ would entail extending the substitution almost all the time
+
+* The simplifier wants to look up in the in-scope set anyway, in case it
+ can see a better unfolding from an enclosing case expression
+
+* For TyVars, only coercion variables can possibly change, and they are
+ easy to spot
+
+\begin{code}
+-- | An environment for substituting for 'Id's