Be more explicit about AST types (#921)

This was born out of wanting FunctionDeclaration to explicitly have a Block for a body, and became a bit more of specifying types around. Note this forces exec_program to generate a Block for print()'s body, which is probably more correct as now we can expect a standard FunctionDeclaration AST structure, even for the built-ins.

There is a syntactic change here: a continuation's body is now a Block, not just a Statement. I've added an example disallowed test case. I think this is more reasonable syntax.

Other than that, note that optional_else now generates a valid Block. This has me thinking about whether we can eliminate Sequence, but that seemed well out of scope for this.

executable_semantics/testdata/experimental_continuation/fail_continuation_syntax.carbon

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+// Part of the Carbon Language project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
+// Exceptions. See /LICENSE for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
+//
+// RUN: not executable_semantics %s 2>&1 | \
+// RUN:   FileCheck --match-full-lines --allow-unused-prefixes=false %s
+// RUN: not executable_semantics --trace %s 2>&1 | \
+// RUN:   FileCheck --match-full-lines --allow-unused-prefixes %s
+// AUTOUPDATE: executable_semantics %s
+// CHECK: COMPILATION ERROR: {{.*}}/executable_semantics/testdata/experimental_continuation/fail_continuation_syntax.carbon:16: syntax error, unexpected identifier, expecting LEFT_CURLY_BRACE
+
+package ExecutableSemanticsTest api;
+
+fn main() -> i32 {
+  var x: i32 = 0;
+  __continuation k x = 3;
+  __run k;
+  return x;
+}