Move diagnostics into a namespace (#5173)

What this really does is avoids shadowing names, so that we can
comfortable have things like `Check::DiagnosticEmitter` or
`Check::DiagnosticLoc` without shadowing being a concern.

Note, down this path I'm also thinking about:

- Renaming misc DiagnosticConsumer/DiagnosticEmitter classes, possibly
just to DiagnosticConsumer/DiagnosticEmitter (so
`Check::DiagnosticEmitter` instead of `SemIRLocDiagnosticEmitter`).
- Dropping `Diagnostic` from `Emitter::DiagnosticBuilder`.
- But not for `Check::DiagnosticBuilder`, because `Check::Builder` would
be ambiguous.
- Renaming diagnostics/diagnostic_* to drop "diagnostic".

[Discussion about SemIRLoc ->
DiagnosticLoc](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1353771570463768698)
reminded me of this (in particular the older [Check::DiagnosticBuilder
discussion](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1344363562608627763)),
but I'd only do that rename if there's matching consensus about a path
forward where we keep SemIRLoc, and in a way that it's only ever used
for diagnostics (the divergence from which is at the root of current
LocId discussion).

I'm trying to keep that separate from a namespace addition for clarity.

toolchain/parse/handle_binding_pattern.cpp

@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ auto HandleBindingPattern(Context& context) -> void {
     if (!state.has_error) {
       CARBON_DIAGNOSTIC(ExpectedBindingPattern, Error,
                         "expected {0:name|`:` or `:!`} in binding pattern",
-                        BoolAsSelect);
+                        Diagnostics::BoolAsSelect);
       context.emitter().Emit(*context.position(), ExpectedBindingPattern,
                              expected_name);
       state.has_error = true;