[Question] Widget states are confusing

Hi,

The current description of the widget states is a bit confusing:

```
enum nk_widget_states {
NK_WIDGET_STATE_MODIFIED = NK_FLAG(1),
NK_WIDGET_STATE_INACTIVE = NK_FLAG(2), /* widget is neither active nor hovered */
NK_WIDGET_STATE_ENTERED = NK_FLAG(3), /* widget has been hovered on the current frame */
NK_WIDGET_STATE_HOVER = NK_FLAG(4), /* widget is being hovered */
NK_WIDGET_STATE_ACTIVED = NK_FLAG(5),/* widget is currently activated */
NK_WIDGET_STATE_LEFT = NK_FLAG(6), /* widget is from this frame on not hovered anymore */
NK_WIDGET_STATE_HOVERED = NK_WIDGET_STATE_HOVER|NK_WIDGET_STATE_MODIFIED, /* widget is being hovered */
NK_WIDGET_STATE_ACTIVE = NK_WIDGET_STATE_ACTIVED|NK_WIDGET_STATE_MODIFIED /* widget is currently activated */
};
```
NK_WIDGET_STATE_ACTIVED and NK_WIDGET_STATE_ACTIVE have the same comment description. What is the difference between these two states?

NK_WIDGET_STATE_HOVER and NK_WIDGET_STATE_HOVERED also have the same comment description. What is the difference between these two states?

The name NK_WIDGET_STATE_ACTIVED looks misspelled. Should it not be NK_WIDGET_STATE_ACTIVATED?

Thanks!

Locate the nk_widget_states enum in Nuklear's C header and read how each state is used. Determine the distinctions between ACTIVED/ACTIVE and HOVER/HOVERED, and confirm whether ACTIVED should be renamed; done means the comments and naming accurately document the behavior.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.