+Note [Lookup in-scope]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Consider this example
+ foo :: Int -> Maybe Int -> Int
+ foo 0 (Just n) = n
+ foo m (Just n) = foo (m-n) (Just n)
+
+SpecConstr sees this fragment:
+
+ case w_smT of wild_Xf [Just A] {
+ Data.Maybe.Nothing -> lvl_smf;
+ Data.Maybe.Just n_acT [Just S(L)] ->
+ case n_acT of wild1_ams [Just A] { GHC.Base.I# y_amr [Just L] ->
+ $wfoo_smW (GHC.Prim.-# ds_Xmb y_amr) wild_Xf
+ }};
+
+and correctly generates the rule
+
+ RULES: "SC:$wfoo1" [0] __forall {y_amr [Just L] :: GHC.Prim.Int#
+ sc_snn :: GHC.Prim.Int#}
+ $wfoo_smW sc_snn (Data.Maybe.Just @ GHC.Base.Int (GHC.Base.I# y_amr))
+ = $s$wfoo_sno y_amr sc_snn ;]
+
+BUT we must ensure that this rule matches in the original function!
+Note that the call to $wfoo is
+ $wfoo_smW (GHC.Prim.-# ds_Xmb y_amr) wild_Xf
+
+During matching we expand wild_Xf to (Just n_acT). But then we must also
+expand n_acT to (I# y_amr). And we can only do that if we look up n_acT
+in the in-scope set, because in wild_Xf's unfolding it won't have an unfolding
+at all.
+
+That is why the 'lookupRnInScope' call in the (Var v2) case of 'match'
+is so important.
+
+