feat: Add unsafe array take and put operations

[mark-koch]

I'm reluctant to add this, but this should remove the need for people to use option-arrays.

Questions:

• Is put a good name?
• Should the names include an _unsafe suffix?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 88.88889% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 92.78%. Comparing base (083133e) to head (f005cdc).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
guppylang/std/array.py	80.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1165   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.78%   92.78%           
=======================================
  Files         119      119           
  Lines       10944    10952    +8     
=======================================
+ Hits        10154    10162    +8     
  Misses        790      790           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ss2165]

I like

take_unsafe and return_unsafe

[ss2165]

please document the kwarg

[ss2165]

This is waiting on an updated implementation using borrow array, which requires a "check" HUGR operation CQCL/hugr#2569

[acl-cqc]

My main comment is that this makes the analysis for borrow-return "squashing" substantially harder (and/or less effective). See CQCL/tket2#1159 . Doesn't mean we can't do this, but we may want to hold off.

UPDATE: I've reduced scope of that squashing meaning that it is now "safe" even given this PR, although CQCL/tket2#1176 would still be useful (not essential).