We add a specific constructor to the type of expressions for injecting
values in expressions.

The advantage are :
- Values can be assumed to be always closed when performing
  substitutions (even though they could contain free variables, but it
  turns out it does not cause any problem in the proofs in
  practice). This means that we no longer need the `Closed` typeclass
  and everything that comes with it (all the reflection-based machinery
  contained in tactics.v is no longer necessary). I have not measured
  anything, but I guess this would have a significant performance
  impact.

- There is only one constructor for values. As a result, the AsVal and
  IntoVal typeclasses are no longer necessary: an expression which is
  a value will always unify with `Val _`, and therefore lemmas can be
  stated using this constructor.

Of course, this means that there are two ways of writing such a thing
as "The pair of integers 1 and 2": Either by using the value
constructor applied to the pair represented as a value, or by using
the expression pair constructor. So we add reduction rules that
transform reduced pair, injection and closure expressions into values.
At first, this seems weird, because of the redundancy. But in fact,
this has some meaning, since the machine migth actually be doing
something to e.g., allocate the pair or the closure.

These additional steps of computation show up in the proofs, and some
additional wp_* tactics need to be called.

For example, framing `P` in `(P ∨ Q) ∗ R` now succeeds and turns the goal into `R`.

The advantage is that we can directly use a Coq introduction pattern
`cpat` to perform actions to the pure assertion. Before, this had
to be done in several steps:

  iDestruct ... as "[Htmp ...]"; iDestruct "Htmp" as %cpat.

That is, one had to introduce a temporary name.

I expect this to be quite useful in various developments as many of
e.g. our invariants are written as:

  ∃ x1 .. x2, ⌜ pure stuff ⌝ ∗ spacial stuff.

Instead of writing a separate tactic lemma for each pure reduction,
there is a single tactic lemma for performing all of them.

The instances of PureExec can be shared between WP tactics and, e.g.
symbolic execution in the ghost  threadpool

For obsolete reasons, that no longer seem to apply, we used ∅ as the
unit.

This patch was created using

  find -name *.v | xargs -L 1 awk -i inplace '{from = 0} /^From/{ from = 1; ever_from = 1} { if (from == 0 && seen == 0 && ever_from == 1) { print "Set Default Proof Using \"Type*\"."; seen = 1 } }1 '

and some minor manual editing

The WP construction now takes an invariant on states as a parameter
(part of the irisG class) and no longer builds in the authoritative
ownership of the entire state. When instantiating WP with a concrete
language on can choose its state invariant. For example, for heap_lang
we directly use `auth (gmap loc (frac * dec_agree val))`, and avoid
the indirection through invariants entirely.

As a result, we no longer have to carry `heap_ctx` around.

The old choice for ★ was a arbitrary: the precedence of the ASCII asterisk *
was fixed at a wrong level in Coq, so we had to pick another symbol. The ★ was
a random choice from a unicode chart.

The new symbol ∗ (as proposed by David Swasey) corresponds better to
conventional practise and matches the symbol we use on paper.

This should make theme asier to parse, "{{{ v, v; l |-> v }}}" looks rather funny.

Now we try to avoid adding them unnecessarily, so we don't have to remove them automatically any more.

There are now two proof mode tactics for dealing with modalities:

- `iModIntro` : introduction of a modality
- `iMod pm_trm as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : eliminate a modality

The behavior of these tactics can be controlled by instances of the `IntroModal`
and `ElimModal` type class. We have declared instances for later, except 0,
basic updates and fancy updates. The tactic `iMod` is flexible enough that it
can also eliminate an updates around a weakest pre, and so forth.

The corresponding introduction patterns of these tactics are `!>` and `>`.

These tactics replace the tactics `iUpdIntro`, `iUpd` and `iTimeless`.

Source of backwards incompatability: the introduction pattern `!>` is used for
introduction of arbitrary modalities. It used to introduce laters by stripping
of a later of each hypotheses.

And also rename the corresponding proof mode tactics.

Before this commit, given "HP" : P and "H" : P -★ Q with Q persistent, one
could write:

  iSpecialize ("H" with "#HP")

to eliminate the wand in "H" while keeping the resource "HP". The lemma:

  own_valid : own γ x ⊢ ✓ x

was the prototypical example where this pattern (using the #) was used.

However, the pattern was too limited. For example, given "H" : P₁ -★ P₂ -★ Q",
one could not write iSpecialize ("H" with "#HP₁") because P₂ -★ Q is not
persistent, even when Q is.

So, instead, this commit introduces the following tactic:

  iSpecialize pm_trm as #

which allows one to eliminate implications and wands while being able to use
all hypotheses to prove the premises, as well as being able to use all
hypotheses to prove the resulting goal.

In the case of iDestruct, we now check whether all branches of the introduction
pattern start with an `#` (moving the hypothesis to the persistent context) or
`%` (moving the hypothesis to the pure Coq context). If this is the case, we
allow one to use all hypotheses for proving the premises, as well as for proving
the resulting goal.