Make `GenericType<T>` not implement `java.lang.reflect.Type`

In the same vein as #73, probably `GenericType` should not implement `java.lang.reflect.Type`. It's not really a "type" itself—it's a type _holder_.

I can appreciated that the original conception was to have `GenericType` be a "type" representing a "type with generics" (sort of like an improved `ParameterizedType`). But in the larger scheme of things and in hindsight, it's really just one of many duplicates of the [Super Type Token](https://gafter.blogspot.com/2006/12/super-type-tokens.html) pattern. And to put this in context:

* The original example in Neil Gafter's famous [_Super Type Tokens_](https://gafter.blogspot.com/2006/12/super-type-tokens.html) does _not_ implement `Type`.
* Jackson's `TypeReference` does _not_ implement `Type`.
* Spring's [`ParameterizedTypeReference`](https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/current/javadoc-api/org/springframework/core/ParameterizedTypeReference.html) does _not_ implement `Type`.
* The Guice [`TypeLiteral`](https://google.github.io/guice/api-docs/7.0.0/javadoc/com/google/inject/TypeLiteral.html) does _not_ implement `Type`.
* The [GeantyRef](https://github.com/leangen/geantyref) fork of [gentyref](https://code.google.com/archive/p/gentyref/) has a [`TypeToken`](https://github.com/leangen/geantyref/blob/master/src/main/java/io/leangen/geantyref/TypeToken.java) which does _not_ implement `Type`.
* Guava's [`TypeToken`](https://guava.dev/releases/snapshot-jre/api/docs/com/google/common/reflect/TypeToken.html) does _not_ implement `Type`.

Thus ClassMate's `GenericType` is the only one that implements `java.lang.reflect.Type`.

The reason I bring this up is that the whole `Type` system (as [you explain so well](https://www.cowtowncoder.com/blog/archives/2010/12/entry_436.html)) is already confusing and awkward; adding one other _wrapper_ that itself pretends to be a `Type`, in contrast with all the other uses of this pattern, adds even more confusion.

Let me give an illustration of the confusion it can cause. Let's say (following the discussion in #69) that I want to make a general method to convert some "type token" to a `Type` (so that I can then use Jackson to convert it to a `JavaType`, etc.). Look closely at this code:

```java
public static Type typeTokenToType(@Nonnull final Object typeToken) {
//super type token (check first, because ClassMate `GenericType` is also a `Type`)
final Type superTypeTokenSuperClass = typeToken.getClass().getGenericSuperclass();
if(superTypeTokenSuperClass instanceof ParameterizedType parameterizedType) {
final Type[] actualTypeArguments = parameterizedType.getActualTypeArguments();
if(actualTypeArguments.length == 1) {
return actualTypeArguments[0];
}
}
//type
if(typeToken instanceof Type) { //types in general, if they are not super type tokens needing "unwrapping", can be returned directly
return (Type)typeToken;
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Type token must be an instance of `Class`, or have a super class providing a single generic type argument.");
}
```

You see the potential bug if the developer weren't paying attention? In a perfect world, I would first test to see if `typeToken` is a `Type`, and just return it, because the type token is already a `Type` (e.g. a `Class` or a `ParameterizedType`). Otherwise I would see if it is a "super type token". And that approach would work with all the other super type tokens—except for ClassMate's `GenericType`, because `GenericType` claims it is a `Type` itself already!

The fix for this example is easy (as shown in the method above): just leave the `instanceof Type` check for last. But it would be more efficient to test for `Type` up front. More worrisome, I would have had to have noticed before writing the method (I actually didn't at first) that `GenericType` implements `Type`, or I would have wound up with such a bug.

Lots of other bugs may crop up. A developer may write a `doFoo(Type type)` method, assuming the type has already been "unwrapped", and someone could send it a `GenericType`, forgetting to unwrap/extract the `Type` first. I could see this happening all over the place.

At the end of the day this isn't a blocker, and it's certainly not a critical bug. And if you don't agree with me, and you see value in having `GenericType` implement `Type`, that's fine. Nevertheless I thought I'd document what I see as an issue so that you can think about it. Cheers!