We can't simply emit the desugared, expanded version of the requirements
because there's no way to pretty-print the type `some ~Copyable` when
the `~Copyable`'s get replaced with the absence of `Copyable`. We'd be
left with just `some _` or need to invent a new top type so we can write
`some Top`. Thus, it's best to simply reverse the expansion of default
requirements when emitting a swiftinterface file.
We already need to track the inverses separate from the members in a
ProtocolCompositionType, since inverses aren't real types. Thus, the
only purpose being served by InverseType is to be eliminated by
RequirementLowering when it appears in a conformance requirement.
Instead, we introduce separate type InverseRequirement just to keep
track of which inverses we encounter to facilitate cancelling-out
defaults and ensuring that the inverses are respected after running
the RequirementMachine.
