Fix config_param.future: Internal error in getVisibilityScope().

This test failed because a type definition inside a param "if" block is not actually in
the AST.  But an attempt is made to resolve the type constructor anyway in
resolveAutoCopies().

The cure is to weed out this undesirable case.

The .good file had to be updated ("false" is expected).

The .future file was removed, as the test now passes.
Remove assertion (syncs behave like records, but aren't).
Merge branch 'master' into fixConfigParamFuture

# Please enter a commit message to explain why this merge is necessary,
# especially if it merges an updated upstream into a topic branch.
#
# Lines starting with '#' will be ignored, and an empty message aborts
# the commit.
Revert "Local update of STATUS.devel, removing futures recently retired by me."

This reverts commit 903e008148a9ac9948ee51a20a2a6228a9e34041.
Slight formatting change.
Merge pull request #236 from hildeth/fixConfigParamFuture

Fix config param future

The failing test case includes an "if" clause that tests a param value. The conditional contains a record declaration. The record declaration will cause an autoCopy function to be generated for that record type. But resolution removes the "if" clause if the param value evaluates to false.

When that happens, the type declaration itself -- as well as any functions created ot support it -- are no longer in the tree. Thus, when resolving autoCopies, autoCopy functions that are not in the tree should be ignored.