[LTL] Added overloadings for AssertProperty

[dobios]

This PR adds two overloadings for AssertProperty, which allow for it to be used on Bools without importing Sequence._.

Contributor Checklist

• Did you add Scaladoc to every public function/method?
• Did you add at least one test demonstrating the PR?
• Did you delete any extraneous printlns/debugging code?
• Did you specify the type of improvement?
• Did you add appropriate documentation in docs/src?
• Did you request a desired merge strategy?
• Did you add text to be included in the Release Notes for this change?

Type of Improvement

• API modification

Desired Merge Strategy

• Squash: The PR will be squashed and merged (choose this if you have no preference).

Release Notes

Reviewer Checklist (only modified by reviewer)

• Did you add the appropriate labels? (Select the most appropriate one based on the "Type of Improvement")
• Did you mark the proper milestone (Bug fix: 3.6.x, 5.x, or 6.x depending on impact, API modification or big change: 7.0)?
• Did you review?
• Did you check whether all relevant Contributor checkboxes have been checked?
• Did you do one of the following when ready to merge:
  • Squash: You/ the contributor Enable auto-merge (squash), clean up the commit message, and label with Please Merge.
  • Merge: Ensure that contributor has cleaned up their commit history, then merge with Create a merge commit.

[sequencer]

Can you add a simple test?

[dobios]

@sequencer commented on this pull request.

Can you add a simple test?

This is already covered by several existing tests in LTLSpec, which is why I didn't add one. 

[jackkoenig]

@dobios make sure to run formatting! https://github.com/chipsalliance/chisel/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#im-failing-the-formatting-check-how-do-i-make-sure-my-code-is-formatted

[jackkoenig]

I don't think there's really a reason to mention overloading in the ScalaDoc, from the user's perspective this is just the API they should call (I would just basically copy-paste the ScalaDoc on the main apply function although it would be good to turn those bullets into actual Scaladoc (using @param).

We also need a form that takes clock and disable. This is annoying since we can't have another apply with default arguments, but maybe just have 3, one taking the prop, one taking the prop and label, and one taking all of the arguments.

[jackkoenig]

@sequencer commented on this pull request.
Can you add a simple test?
This is already covered by several existing tests in LTLSpec, which is why I didn't add one.

To elaborate a little, places like

chisel/src/test/scala/chiselTests/LTLSpec.scala

Line 196 in fe5bf69

AssertProperty(a)

were using the implicit conversion but now use the overloaded method