complicate #vanquished monsters processing...

complicate #vanquished monsters processing...

...to make it more interesting.  Using #vanquished in wizard mode
or answering 'a' to the "disclose vanquished monsters?" prompt will
put up a menu to choose how the list of vanquished monsters should
be ordered.  Right now there are 6 choices:

  Traditional: by monster level, by internal index within level;
  by monster toughness, by internal index within monstr[] rating;
  alphabetically, first unique monsters, then others;
  by monster class, low to high level within class;
  by count, high to low, by internal index within tied count;
  by count, low to high, by internal index within tied count.

Two other orderings are implemented but suppressed from the menu
since they seemed uninteresting (alphabetical with uniques
intermixed with other monsters, and by-class high to low within
class).  The first two are very similar to each other and one of
them should probably be discarded too.  The by-class order(s) have
class-name separator lines between classes.

Options parsing for end of game disclosure has extended current
  +v (always show vanquished monsters)
  -v (never show vanquished monsters)
  yv (prompt about them, with default response 'y')
  nv (prompt about them, with default response 'n')
to include
  #v (always show vanquished monsters and choose the ordering)
  ?v (prompt about them, with default response 'a' to choose ordering)

The 'a' response was picked because it's easy to use ynaq()
instead of ynq(), but it can be considered to mean "ask about sort
order".  (Neither of the two new option values could be "av"; 'a'
for disclosing attributes would become ambiguous.)

+v or answering 'y' for any of yv, nv, or ?v uses the most recent
sort ordering (if #vanquished has been used in wizard mode) or the
traditional one (normal mode, or #vanquished not used).  Players
will probably want to specify a default order and then use +v
rather than choose the final order from a menu.  That hasn't been
implemented here.  Count high to low might be a better default than
level high to low.

While looking through Guidebook.tex to try to determine whether
the new text needed special handling, I spotted multiple mistakes
in the existing text.  Probably all from earlier updates of mine;
this attempts to fix them.  As usual of late, Guidebook.mn has been
tested and Guidebook.tex hasn't.