Rename `UCMRA` → `Ucmra`
Rename `CMRA` → `Cmra`
Rename `OFE` → `Ofe` (`Ofe` was already used partially, but many occurences were missing)
Rename `STS` → `Sts`
Rename `DRA` → `Dra`

I have reimplemented the tactic for introduction of ∀s/pures using type
classes, which directly made it much more modular.

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.

This causes a bit of backwards incompatibility: it may now succeed with
later stripping below unlocked/TC transparent definitions. This problem
actually occured for `wsat`.

We used to normalize the goal, and then checked whether it was of
a certain shape. Since `uPred_valid P` normalized to `True ⊢ P`,
there was no way of making a distinction between the two, hence
`True ⊢ P` was treated as `uPred_valid P`.

In this commit, I use type classes to check whether the goal is of
a certain shape. Since we declared `uPred_valid` as `Typeclasses
Opaque`, we can now make a distinction between `True ⊢ P` and
`uPred_valid P`.

persistent context.

Given the source does not contain a box:

- Before: no-op if there is a Persistent instance.
- Now: no-op in all cases.

We now first iPoseProof the lemma and instantiate its premises before trying
to search for the sub-term where to apply. As a result, instantiation of the
premises of the applied lemmas happens only once, instead of it being done for
each sub-term as obtained by reshape_expr.

Fixes #96

This makes it easier to frame or introduce some modalities before introducing
universal quantifiers.

when using iCombine.

Otherwise, the tactic will fail subsequently. Besides, it was inconsistent
w.r.t. the iLöb tactic, which was already doing this.

Now they can also be used to clear/frame the whole pure/persistent/spatial
context.

After discussing this with Ralf, again, it turned out that using a bar
instead of a turnstyle would be better. When formalizing type systems, one
often wants to use a turnstyle in other notations (the typing judgment),
so having the turnstyle in the proofmode notation is confusing.

This enables things like `iSpecialize ("H2" with "H1") in the below:

  "H1" : P
  ---------□
  "H2" : □ P -∗ Q
  ---------∗
  R

For example, when having `H : ▷ P → Q` and `HP : P`, we can now
do `iSpecialize ("H" with "HP")`. This is achieved by putting a
`FromAssumption` premise in the base instance for `IntoWand`.