WIP safe and sane B-Tree rewrite

Total minimal rewrite of BTree to not use copy/clone at all, and to generally avoid unnecessary mutations. I have not yet implemented the "miscellaneous" collection things like iterators, Ord, Eq, Hash, etc as I want to nail the core stuff down first. 

There is one substantial drawback to my implementation: it doesn't allow configuration of `B`. The benefit of this is that the nodes are made of `[T,..n]`'s instead of Vecs, putting more data contiguously and reducing the amount of indirection. I have done this under @aturon's recommendation that it would be better to write a BTree implementation that would benefit from the future possibility of generic integer arguments being available (I am not saying they will be added).

One consequence of this is that I currently store the Keys/Values in Options, because it's not clear to me if there's a safe way to work with partially intialized arrays, or to tell Rust to "forget" some or all of the array and not try to run destructors on the elements. I would *love* if someone could show me how to do that.

In addition, right now I do a *lot* of indexing which could probably be replaced with iterators to avoid bounds checks. I'm also not leveraging `copy` instrinsics to bulk shift the elements around. This first draft is emphasizing correctness and safety over performance, but in a way that's easily upgradable. I hope to have the time to start tuning the implementation in the coming days,

The actual code is literally 25% just comments describing the fairly complex logic of a BTree. I've tried to chunk things out into "grokable" functions where possible so that everyone understands what's going on. 

Finally, as a quick sanity check, I ran treemap's bench suite on btree (`make check-collections -j8 PLEASE_BENCH=1`):
```
test treemap::bench::find_rand_100                         ... bench:        74 ns/iter (+/- 5)
test treemap::bench::find_rand_10_000                      ... bench:       164 ns/iter (+/- 3)
test treemap::bench::find_seq_100                          ... bench:        76 ns/iter (+/- 2)
test treemap::bench::find_seq_10_000                       ... bench:       115 ns/iter (+/- 2)
test treemap::bench::insert_rand_100                       ... bench:       126 ns/iter (+/- 2)
test treemap::bench::insert_rand_10_000                    ... bench:      1025 ns/iter (+/- 16)
test treemap::bench::insert_seq_100                        ... bench:       507 ns/iter (+/- 19)
test treemap::bench::insert_seq_10_000                     ... bench:       834 ns/iter (+/- 15)

test btree::bench::find_rand_100                           ... bench:        86 ns/iter (+/- 4)
test btree::bench::find_rand_10_000                        ... bench:       165 ns/iter (+/- 2)
test btree::bench::find_seq_100                            ... bench:        86 ns/iter (+/- 2)
test btree::bench::find_seq_10_000                         ... bench:       117 ns/iter (+/- 1)
test btree::bench::insert_rand_100                         ... bench:       270 ns/iter (+/- 10)
test btree::bench::insert_rand_10_000                      ... bench:       598 ns/iter (+/- 18)
test btree::bench::insert_seq_100                          ... bench:       386 ns/iter (+/- 8)
test btree::bench::insert_seq_10_000                       ... bench:       459 ns/iter (+/- 4)
```

As you can see, my implementation is generally competitive with treemap, and is substantially faster during large insertion workloads. And as discussed above, I haven't even begun to tune it; my choice of B is largely arbitrary!

If anyone is a low-level optimizing expert, or just knows good BTree design/tuning, I'd love to get any feedback on this work. If anyone has any other ideas or questions, I'm more than happy to discuss this with you!

Yes, you spend the vast majority of your time searching the keys, so having (potentially huge) values you don't care about between them just hurts cache efficiency.