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.

rename program_logic.{ownership -> wsat}. It really is about world satisfaction and invariants more than about ownership.

As proposed by JH Jourdan in issue 34.

This closes issue 32.

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.

This is allowed as long as one of the conjuncts is thrown away (i.e. is a
wildcard _ in the introduction pattern). It corresponds to the principle of
"external choice" in linear logic.

This is more consistent with CAS, which also can be used on any value.
Note that being able to (atomically) test for equality of any value and
being able to CAS on any value is not realistic. See the discussion at
https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/FP/iris-coq/issues/26, and in particular JH
Jourdan's observation:

  I think indeed for heap_lang this is just too complicated.

  Anyway, the role of heap_lang is not to model any actual
  programming language, but rather to show that we can do proofs
  about certain programs. The fact that you can write unrealistic
  programs is not a problem, IMHO. The only thing which is important
  is that the program that we write are realistic (i.e., faithfully
  represents the algorithm we want to p

This commit is based on a commit by Zhen Zhang who generalized equality
to work on any literal (and not just integers).

This generalization is surprisingly easy in Iris 3.0, so I could not
resist not doing it :).

This makes stuff more uniform and also removes the need for the [inGFs]
type class. Instead, there is now a type class [subG Σ1 Σ2] which expresses
that a list of functors [Σ1] is contained in [Σ2].

This better reflects the name of the bind rule.

I renamed an internal tactic that was previously called wp_bind into
wp_bind_core.

Use it to prove that tests/barrier_client and tests/heap_lang are adequate.

Also make those for introduction and elimination more symmetric:

  !%   pure introduction         %        pure elimination
  !#   always introduction       #        always elimination
  !>   later introduction        > pat    timeless later elimination
  !==> view shift introduction   ==> pat  view shift elimination

This commit features:

- A simpler model. The recursive domain equation no longer involves a triple
  containing invariants, physical state and ghost state, but just ghost state.
  Invariants and physical state are encoded using (higher-order) ghost state.

- (Primitive) view shifts are formalized in the logic and all properties about
  it are proven in the logic instead of the model. Instead, the core logic
  features only a notion of raw view shifts which internalizing performing frame
  preserving updates.

- A better behaved notion of mask changing view shifts. In particular, we no
  longer have side-conditions on transitivity of view shifts, and we have a
  rule for introduction of mask changing view shifts |={E1,E2}=> P with
  E2 ⊆ E1 which allows to postpone performing a view shift.

- The weakest precondition connective is formalized in the logic using Banach's
  fixpoint. All properties about the connective are proven in the logic instead
  of directly in the model.

- Adequacy is proven in the logic and uses a primitive form of adequacy for
  uPred that only involves raw views shifts and laters.

Some remarks:

- I have removed binary view shifts. I did not see a way to describe all rules
  of the new mask changing view shifts using those.
- There is no longer the need for the notion of "frame shifting assertions" and
  these are thus removed. The rules for Hoare triples are thus also stated in
  terms of primitive view shifts.

TODO:

- Maybe rename primitive view shift into something more sensible
- Figure out a way to deal with closed proofs (see the commented out stuff in
  tests/heap_lang and tests/barrier_client).