Add ERC-7579 modules docs and EIP-7702 note in accounts docs

[ernestognw]

Follow up to #121

[arr00]

We should add the interfaces to the API section of the docs.

[ernestognw]

We should add the interfaces to the API section of the docs.

Yeah, the issue with those is a bit more complex since they come from the vanilla repository. #30

[gonzaotc]

I'm not sure where and exactly how, but I would like to briefly mention the benefits of implicitly using ERC-7913 building blocks on the Social Recovery example, since I think, and this is very opinionated, that it is a valuable feature that makes a compelling reason enough to choose this over other implementations, on top of the great composability and extensibility provided. Wdyt? @ernestognw

[ernestognw]

I don't think standards should be sold. I mean that a good standard solves an issue cleanly, and I think this is the case. The recommendation should be "just use ERC-7913" because it's simply the best way to approach support for arbitrary authorization types.

Instead, maybe users would benefit from understanding how to bring ERC-7913 to their use cases. They should be guided about when to use each variant (SingerERC7913, MultisignerERC7913, ERC7579Multisig, ERC7913Utils, ERC7913RSAVerifier, ERC7913ZKVerifier, ERC7913P256Verifier and beyond)

[ernestognw]

I think I get what you say. Is it that the reasons of why using an ERC7579Multisig aren't explained? That'd be true.

I just updated with a bit more context in 8980e0c

[ernestognw]

Thanks for reviewing both! Merging since the previous change was minimal