We do not have a notation for `bi_affinely` either, so this is at
least consistent.

It used to be an inline pattern match.

This also restores compatibility with Coq 8.6.1.

The proof mode now explicitly keeps track of anonymous hypotheses (i.e.
hypotheses that are introduced by the introduction pattern `?`). Consider:

  Lemma foo {M} (P Q R : uPred M) : P -∗ (Q ∗ R) -∗ Q ∗ P.
  Proof. iIntros "? [H ?]". iFrame "H". iFrame. Qed.

After the `iIntros`, the goal will be:

  _ : P
  "H" : Q
  _ : R
  --------------------------------------∗
  Q ∗ P

Anonymous hypotheses are displayed in a special way (`_ : P`). An important
property of the new anonymous hypotheses is that it is no longer possible to
refer to them by name, whereas before, anonymous hypotheses were given some
arbitrary fresh name (typically prefixed by `~`).

Note tactics can still operate on these anonymous hypotheses. For example, both
`iFrame` and `iAssumption`, as well as the symbolic execution tactics, will
use them. The only thing that is not possible is to refer to them yourself,
for example, in an introduction, specialization or selection pattern.

Advantages of the new approach:

- Proofs become more robust as one cannot accidentally refer to anonymous
  hypotheses by their fresh name.
- Fresh name generation becomes considerably easier. Since anonymous hypotheses
  are internally represented by natural numbers (of type `N`), we can just fold
  over the hypotheses and take the max plus one. This thus solve issue #101.

This solves issue #100: the proof mode notation is sometimes not printed. As
Ralf discovered, the problem is that there are two overlapping notations:

```coq
Notation "P ⊢ Q" := (uPred_entails P Q).
```

And the "proof mode" notation:

```
Notation "Γ '--------------------------------------' □ Δ '--------------------------------------' ∗ Q" :=
  (of_envs (Envs Γ Δ) ⊢ Q%I).
```

These two notations overlap, so, when having a "proof mode" goal of the shape
`of_envs (Envs Γ Δ) ⊢ Q%I`, how do we know which notation is Coq going to pick
for pretty printing this goal? As we have seen, this choice depends on the
import order (since both notations appear in different files), and as such, Coq
sometimes (unintendedly) uses the first notation instead of the latter.

The idea of this commit is to wrap `of_envs (Envs Γ Δ) ⊢ Q%I` into a definition
so that there is no ambiguity for the pretty printer anymore.

(□ P) now means (bi_bare (bi_persistently P)).

This is motivated by the fact that these two modalities are rarely
used separately.

In the case of an affine BI, we keep the □ notation. This means that a
bi_bare is inserted each time we use □. Hence, a few adaptations need
to be done in the proof mode class instances.

Whenever we iSpecialize something whose conclusion is persistent, we now have
to prove all the premises under the sink modality. This is strictly more powerful,
as we now have to use just some of the hypotheses to prove the premises, instead of
all.

This also applies to the introduction pattern `!#`. Both will now
introduce as many ■ or □ as possible. This behavior is consistent
with the dual, `#`, which also gets rid of as many ■ and □ modalities
as possible.

(All the later lemmas are now prefixed by later_, and dito for
laterN, and except_0).

The absence of this axiom has two consequences:

- We no longer have `■ (P ∗ Q) ⊢ ■ P ∗ ■ Q` and `□ (P ∗ Q) ⊢ □ P ∗ □ Q`,
  and as a result, separating conjunctions in the unrestricted/persistent
  context cannot be eliminated.
- When having `(P -∗ ⬕ Q) ∗ P`, we do not get `⬕ Q ∗ P`. In the proof
  mode this means when having:

    H1 : P -∗ ⬕ Q
    H2 : P

  We cannot say `iDestruct ("H1" with "H2") as "#H1"` and keep `H2`.

However, there is now a type class `PositiveBI PROP`, and when there is an
instance of this type class, one gets the above reasoning principle back.

TODO: Can we describe positivity of individual propositions instead of the
whole BI? That way, we would get the above reasoning principles even when
the BI is not positive, but the propositions involved are.

Otherwise, ownership of cores in our ordered RA model will not be persistent.

Otherwise, whenever it cannot establish the Absorbing or Affine premise,
it will backtrack on the FromAssumption premise, causing a possible loop.
No idea why this happens, this may be a Coq bug...

This way, it can be used with `iApply`.