That range includes tabs and new lines.

Thanks Morten for spotting this problem.

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.

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

We used => before, which is strange, because it has another meaning
in ssreflect.

To do so, we have introduced the specialization patterns:

  =>[H1 .. Hn] and =>[-H1 .. Hn]

That generate a goal in which the view shift is preserved. These specialization
patterns can also be used for e.g. iApply.

Note that this machinery is not tied to primitive view shifts, and works for
various kinds of goal (as captured by the ToAssert type class, which describes
how to transform the asserted goal based on the main goal).

TODO: change the name of these specialization patterns to reflect this
generality.

Changes:
- We no longer have a different syntax for specializing a term H : P -★ Q whose
  range P or domain Q is persistent. There is just one syntax, and the system
  automatically determines whether either P or Q is persistent.
- While specializing a term, always modalities are automatically stripped. This
  gets rid of the specialization pattern !.
- Make the syntax of specialization patterns more consistent. The syntax for
  generating a goal is [goal_spec] where goal_spec is one of the following:

    H1 .. Hn : generate a goal using hypotheses H1 .. Hn
   -H1 .. Hn : generate a goal using all hypotheses but H1 .. Hn
           # : generate a goal for the premise in which all hypotheses can be
               used. This is only allowed when specializing H : P -★ Q where
               either P or Q is persistent.
           % : generate a goal for a pure premise.

iSpecialize and iDestruct.

These tactics now all take an iTrm, which is a tuple consisting of
a.) a lemma or name of a hypotheses b.) arguments to instantiate
c.) a specialization pattern.