Motor_Groups should fulfill the Container named requirements

[djava]

Building on #450 and #463, for pros::Motor_Group to be fully treatable as a standard container, it should fulfill at the very least the standard's Container named requirements.

Additionally, Motor_Group could likely also fulfill all the named requirements that std::vector does (with the exception of AllocatorAwareContainer), since its underlying data structure is a vector. Those additional named requirements would be SequenceContainer, ContiguousContainer, and ReversibleContainer (although this one is not particularly relevant to any of Motor_Group's potential use-cases).

The main benefits of this are:

• compatibility with range-based for loops
• compatibility with std algorithms
• following C++ standard best practice for how a container-like object should behave

I don't believe that this would be a huge effort, since most of the required types and calls would be redirected to the underlying vector. (i.e. iterator Motor_Group::begin() { return arr.begin(); }) This can certainly be targeted for the PROS 4 release, since it's definitely not urgent.

I'm not sure yet how everything will work with the new PROS 4 design for Motor_Group but I'd imagine that the solution used for Motor_Group::operator[] in PROS 4 will be transferable to these requirements.

[Richard-Stump]

Thank you for the idea! I personally like this idea, but we are currently rewriting the logistics of how motor groups work for PROS 4. We can look at this again when we have a beta version of PROS 4 out, or as a 4.1 feature.