Also add the internal slot names as comments, and separate them into
groups of spec and non-spec members.
This will make it easier to compare the implementation code with the
spec, as well as identify internal slots currently missing or only
present on FunctionObject.
The old name is the result of the perhaps somewhat confusingly named
abstract operation OrdinaryFunctionCreate(), which creates an "ordinary
object" (https://tc39.es/ecma262/#ordinary-object) in contrast to an
"exotic object" (https://tc39.es/ecma262/#exotic-object).
However, the term "Ordinary Function" is not used anywhere in the spec,
instead the created object is referred to as an "ECMAScript Function
Object" (https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-ecmascript-function-objects), so
let's call it that.
The "ordinary" vs. "exotic" distinction is important because there are
also "Built-in Function Objects", which can be either implemented as
ordinary ECMAScript function objects, or as exotic objects (our
NativeFunction).
More work needs to be done to move a lot of infrastructure to
ECMAScriptFunctionObject in order to make FunctionObject nothing more
than an interface for objects that implement [[Call]] and optionally
[[Construct]].
