Freeze on match customization

Addresses #120 by introducing a new customization that freezes specimens based on a set of criteria.

### Usage

The `FreezeOnMatchCustomization` uses the `IRequestSpecification` abstraction as a way to match the incoming requests with the frozen specimen. For example:

```csharp
var fixture = new Fixture();
var freeze = new FreezeOnMatchCustomization(
    typeof(string),
    new PropertySpecification(typeof(string), "Foo"));
fixture.Customize(freeze);
```

This will assign the same string value to _all properties of type `string` named `"Foo"`_.

Multiple matching criteria can also be combined using the `OrRequestSpecification`. Here's an example:

```csharp
var fixture = new Fixture();
var freeze = new FreezeOnMatchCustomization(
    typeof(string),
    new OrRequestSpecification(
        new PropertySpecification(typeof(string), "Foo")
        new ParameterSpecification(typeof(string), "bar"))); 
fixture.Customize(freeze);
```

When no matching criteria are specified, the `FreezeOnMatchCustomization` behaves like the current `FreezingCustomization`, that is it will only match by _exact type_. More concretely:

```csharp
var freeze = new FreezeOnMatchCustomization(typeof(string));
```

is the same as saying:

```csharp
var freeze = new FreezeOnMatchCustomization(typeof(string), new ExactTypeSpecification(typeof(string));
```

### Follow-ups

The are a few things I deliberately left out until after I gather your feedback:

- Since the `FreezeOnMatchCustomization` effectively supersedes the existing `FreezingCustomization`, I propose we obsolete it and rename the `FreezeOnMatchCustomization` to simply be `FreezeCustomization` for consistency.
- I'll add the XML documentation once the feature is finalized.

I look forward to your comments.
This constructor seems to indicate that only target type and target name is used for comparison. Is *ParameterSpecification* then a correct name?

What if we wanted a stricter specification? What if we wanted a looser specification?