GitLab

This was an oversight in !63.

To be consistent with the lemma for the persistence modality.

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

(□ 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.

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

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

Replace/remove some occurences of `persistently` into `persistent` where the property instead of the modality is used.

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`

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`.

For obsolete reasons, that no longer seem to apply, we used ∅ as the
unit.

It can be derived, thanks to Ales for noticing!

Instead, I have introduced a type class `Monoid` that is used by the big operators:

    Class Monoid {M : ofeT} (o : M → M → M) := {
      monoid_unit : M;
      monoid_ne : NonExpansive2 o;
      monoid_assoc : Assoc (≡) o;
      monoid_comm : Comm (≡) o;
      monoid_left_id : LeftId (≡) monoid_unit o;
      monoid_right_id : RightId (≡) monoid_unit o;
    }.

Note that the operation is an argument because we want to have multiple monoids over
the same type (for example, on `uPred`s we have monoids for `∗`, `∧`, and `∨`). However,
we do bundle the unit because:

- If we would not, the unit would appear explicitly in an implicit argument of the
  big operators, which confuses rewrite. By bundling the unit in the `Monoid` class
  it is hidden, and hence rewrite won't even see it.
- The unit is unique.

We could in principle have big ops over setoids instead of OFEs. However, since we do
not have a canonical structure for bundled setoids, I did not go that way.