restriction in uPred_closed.

To be consistent with the lemma for the persistence modality.

In same spirit as the other 'primitive' types like `option`, `prod`, ...

It does not really help since the main work of the proof is in showing that
`cFunctor_map F (iProp_fold, iProp_unfold)` is injective, but whatever.

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.

Thanks to Amin Timany for an initial version of the proof.

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.

This commit is based on code by Amin Timany.