[RFC] Replace ColdSignal and HotSignal with SignalTemplate and Signal

After the long discussion in #1650, I invited @NachoSoto, @andymatuschak, and @kastiglione to talk more in-depth about the Swift APIs, and specifically where they need improvement.

We had a really, really great brainstorming session, and this is the result. The good news is that we all feel pretty good about this direction, and the bad news is that everything is getting rewritten again. :trollface:

The important bits are documented on the types themselves, but here’s the handy Quick Start guide of the proposed changes:

1. `HotSignal<T>` will be replaced by `Signal<T>`. Besides the name change, these signals can now send `Error` and `Completed` events. This avoids a lot of the lifecycle weirdness that has come up with a value-only `HotSignal`.
1. `ColdSignal<T>` will be replaced by `SignalTemplate<T>`. As the name implies, a signal template creates `Signal`s (via the `start` method). You can kind of think of the relationship as something like:
 * `SignalTemplate : Signal :: RACSignal : subscription`
 * `SignalTemplate : Signal :: class : instance`
1. Most of the basic operators are written in terms of `Signal`, but can be lifted to apply to `SignalTemplate` instead.
1. Operators that benefit from “cold” semantics, like `retry` and `repeat`, are written in terms of `SignalTemplate`.

The advantages here are:

* The relationship between “hot” and “cold” signals is now much more explicit and well-defined. A “cold” signal (a template) creates “hot” signals, each of which represents a “subscription” (in RAC 2.x terms).
* Many operators only have to be written once, in terms of `Signal`, and can be lifted to the `SignalTemplate` level.
* The semantics and/or difficulties of converting between “hot” and “cold” are more obvious, I think. You don’t need to swap between them on the fly, because they mean different things.
* Signal lifetime is now consistent, and completely defined by the event stream. Templates don’t do anything special—they really are just value types, and don’t encode any information about lifetime.

I’ll also make some notes in the changes below, to explain more specific things. Please leave feedback if you have it! :bow:
Somehow `valuePlan` sounds more idiomatic to my ears, but in any case, I think this is fine if we end up rolling with `Plan`. I hope we do come up with something better… :|