Remove fNN::lerp
Lerp is [surprisingly complex with multiple tradeoffs depending on what guarantees you want to provide](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/86269#issuecomment-869108301) (and what you're willing to drop for raw speed), so we don't have consensus on what implementation to use, let alone what signature - `t.lerp(a, b)` nicely puts `a, b` together, but makes dispatch to lerp custom types with the same signature basically impossible, and major ecosystem crates (e.g. nalgebra, glium) use `a.lerp(b, t)`, which is easily confusable. It was suggested to maybe provide a `Lerp<T>` trait and `t.lerp([a, b])`, which _could_ be implemented by downstream math libraries for their types, but also significantly raises the bar from a simple fNN method to a full trait, and does nothing to solve the implementation question. (It also raises the question of whether we'd support higher-order bezier interpolation.)
The only consensus we have is the lack of consensus, and the [general temperature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/86269#issuecomment-951347135) is that we should just remove this method (giving the method space back to 3rd party libs) and revisit this if (and likely only if) IEEE adds lerp to their specification.
If people want a lerp, they're _probably_ already using (or writing) a math support library, which provides a lerp function for its custom math types and can provide the same lerp implementation for the primitive types via an extension trait.
See also [previous Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/lerp.20API.20design)
cc ``@clarfonthey`` (original PR author), ``@m-ou-se`` (original r+), ``@scottmcm`` (last voice in tracking issue, prompted me to post this)
Closes#86269 (removed)
8871fe8bda