Relax instances for Functor combinators; put superclass on Class1 and Class2 to make non-breaking

This change is approved by the Core Libraries commitee in
https://github.com/haskell/core-libraries-committee/issues/10

The first change makes the `Eq`, `Ord`, `Show`, and `Read` instances for
`Sum`, `Product`, and `Compose` match those for `:+:`, `:*:`, and `:.:`.
These have the proper flexible contexts that are exactly what the
instance needs:

For example, instead of
```haskell
instance (Eq1 f, Eq1 g, Eq a) => Eq (Compose f g a) where
  (==) = eq1
```
we do
```haskell
deriving instance Eq (f (g a)) => Eq (Compose f g a)
```

But, that change alone is rather breaking, because until now `Eq (f a)`
and `Eq1 f` (and respectively the other classes and their `*1`
equivalents too) are *incomparable* constraints. This has always been an
annoyance of working with the `*1` classes, and now it would rear it's
head one last time as an pesky migration.

Instead, we give the `*1` classes superclasses, like so:
```haskell
(forall a. Eq a => Eq (f a)) => Eq1 f
```
along with some laws that canonicity is preserved, like:
```haskell
liftEq (==) = (==)
```

and likewise for `*2` classes:
```haskell
(forall a. Eq a => Eq1 (f a)) => Eq2 f
```
and laws:
```haskell
liftEq2 (==) = liftEq1
```

The `*1` classes also have default methods using the `*2` classes where
possible.

What this means, as explained in the docs, is that `*1` classes really
are generations of the regular classes, indicating that the methods can
be split into a canonical lifting combined with a canonical inner, with
the super class "witnessing" the laws[1] in a fashion.

Circling back to the pragmatics of migrating, note that the superclass
means evidence for the old `Sum`, `Product`, and `Compose` instances is
(more than) sufficient, so breakage is less likely --- as long no
instances are "missing", existing polymorphic code will continue to
work.

Breakage can occur when a datatype implements the `*1` class but not the
corresponding regular class, but this is almost certainly an oversight.
For example, containers made that mistake for `Tree` and `Ord`, which I
fixed in https://github.com/haskell/containers/pull/761, but fixing the
issue by adding `Ord1` was extremely *un*controversial.

`Generically1` was also missing `Eq`, `Ord`, `Read,` and `Show`
instances. It is unlikely this would have been caught without
implementing this change.

-----

[1]: In fact, someday, when the laws are part of the language and not
only documentation, we might be able to drop the superclass field of the
dictionary by using the laws to recover the superclass in an
instance-agnostic manner, e.g. with a *non*-overloaded function with
type:

```haskell
DictEq1 f -> DictEq a -> DictEq (f a)
```

But I don't wish to get into optomizations now, just demonstrate the
close relationship between the law and the superclass.

Bump haddock submodule because of test output changing.

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/utils/haddock b/utils/haddock
-Subproject b5e40b15228fdca5ce7d4e2f2241156d0b08526
+Subproject 7e4326f999056fb7b0b955ccadf5eab86b755a0