Remove renamedt from symex_targett interface

[tautschnig]

We did not consistently use it, and the three methods that did so can easily be adjusted to match the remaining ones in directly taking exprt instead.

• Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
• Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
• n/a The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
• Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
• n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
• My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
• n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.30769% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.30%. Comparing base (4ae54e6) to head (132fe24).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/goto-symex/symex_target_equation.cpp	75.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #8447      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    78.25%   78.30%   +0.04%     
===========================================
  Files         1726     1726              
  Lines       188926   188807     -119     
  Branches     18363    18286      -77     
===========================================
- Hits        147844   147838       -6     
+ Misses       41082    40969     -113     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[peterschrammel]

Not sure about the why of this: why remove it when it is not consistently used rather than make it be used consistently?

[tautschnig]

Not sure about the why of this: why remove it when it is not consistently used rather than make it be used consistently?

We only had 3 of 19 methods use this, and in my opinion each use just made the code more cumbersome.

[peterschrammel]

Can we at least document the level of renaming that is expected for each of the functions?