split value.go into multiple files

[PratikDhanave]

working towards #2566

Description

---

• Targeted PR against master branch
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work
• Code follows the standards mentioned here
• Updated relevant documentation
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
• Added appropriate labels

[PratikDhanave]

hi @turbolent @SupunS @dsainati1 I will keep this PR as draft and wait for feature/stable once merge into master.
after that I will open it for review.

thank you

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 4125 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (323b887) 79.43% compared to head (c9f118f) 79.43%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2913   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   79.43%   79.43%           
=======================================
  Files         332      369   +37     
  Lines       79111    79111           
=======================================
  Hits        62842    62842           
  Misses      13958    13958           
  Partials     2311     2311           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	79.43% <65.09%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
runtime/interpreter/value.go	74.00% <ø> (+6.72%)	⬆️
runtime/interpreter/value_dictionary.go	84.67% <ø> (ø)
runtime/interpreter/value_int128.go	66.47% <ø> (ø)
runtime/interpreter/value_string.go	87.37% <ø> (-3.54%)	⬇️
runtime/interpreter/value_type.go	85.48% <ø> (ø)
runtime/interpreter/value_void.go	78.37% <ø> (ø)
runtime/interpreter/value_bool.go	86.04% <86.04%> (ø)
runtime/interpreter/value_Path.go	87.16% <87.16%> (ø)
runtime/interpreter/value_NilValue.go	69.69% <69.69%> (ø)
runtime/interpreter/value_PathCapability.go	84.12% <84.12%> (ø)
... and 29 more

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

[turbolent]

As mentioned in the last PR, moving code on master is effectively unmergeable. The code should be moved on the Stable Cadence feature branch, as that branch is going to "become the next master". However, there are also still multiple PRs open against that feature branch, which need to be merged first, otherwise those PRs will become unmergeable.

Changes like proposed in this PR will also not become mergeable later, they need to be done once the code has settled, probably after Cadence 1.0 is done.