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.

This closes issue #64.

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

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.

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

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

This fixes issue #84.

This fixes issue #81.