Allow TYPE_USE on MagicConstant, Pattern, RegExp and Subst

[bric3]

This should fix #43 (and complements #77 as it enable TYPE_USE on more annotations).

The main goal of this PR is to enable documenting the code on the generic type parameters. Later this could also be integrated in IDE inspection.

After this PR and this is released a developer can document it's API this way :

Map<@Pattern("[a-z]+(-[a-z]+)*") String, @Language("RegExp") String> regexes

---

Since TYPE_USE is not available prior Java 8, the Java 5 project stripped this enum value from source. However it was missing some cases. This PR is more lenient in detecting and stripping this value.

1. @Target({LOCAL_VARIABLE, TYPE_USE, ANNOTATION_TYPE})
   => @Target({LOCAL_VARIABLE, ANNOTATION_TYPE})
2. @Target({ElementType.LOCAL_VARIABLE, ElementType.TYPE_USE, ElementType.PARAMETER})
   => @Target({ElementType.LOCAL_VARIABLE, ElementType.PARAMETER})
3. @Target({ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.TYPE_USE})
   => @Target({ElementType.FIELD, })
4. @Target({ElementType.TYPE_USE, ElementType.FIELD})
   => @Target({ ElementType.FIELD})

[amaembo]

Hello, Brice! As you may guess, these requests were not satisfied so far, not because we are too lazy to modify four lines of the code, but because there's no support from the tooling. Without tooling support, the change in annotation targets is useless and even confusing, as people would expect the tooling support and would complain about it.

In general, stringly-typed code is not the best thing. Especially now, when we have records. Declare your domain types, and you'll need no type annotations:

record Id(@Pattern("[a-z]+(-[a-z]+)*") String id) {}

Map<Id, java.util.regex.Pattern> regexes 
// now the code is safe and strongly typed. E.g. you won't accidentally mix key and value

[bric3]

I agree with you on the DSL and "stringly-typed", however some set of specific APIs it's not practical to have intermediate types.

but because there's no support from the tooling. Without tooling support, the change in annotation targets is useless and even confusing, as people would expect the tooling support and would complain about it.

I totally get that tolling is not there. However, I don't believe having those without tooling support is confusing, instead they allow to document expectations on these values.