BUG/ENH: provide better .loc based semantics for float based indicies, continuing not to fallback (related GH236)
closes #236 
- CLN: refactor all scalar/slicing code from core/indexing.py to core/index.py on a per-index basis
- BUG: provide better `.loc` semantics on floating indicies
- API: provide a implementation of `Float64Index`
- BUG: raise on indexing with float keys on a non-float index

provide better `loc` semantics on `Float64Index`

```
In [1]: s = Series(np.arange(5), index=np.arange(5) * 2.5)

In [9]: s.index
Out[9]: Float64Index([0.0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0], dtype=object)

In [2]: s
Out[2]: 
0.0     0
2.5     1
5.0     2
7.5     3
10.0    4
dtype: int64

In [3]: # label based slicing

In [4]: s[1.0:3.0]
Out[4]: 
2.5    1
dtype: int64

In [5]: s.ix[1.0:3.0]
Out[5]: 
2.5    1
dtype: int64

In [6]: s.loc[1.0:3.0]
Out[6]: 
2.5    1
dtype: int64

In [7]: # exact indexing when found

In [8]: s[5.0]
Out[8]: 2

In [9]: s.loc[5.0]
Out[9]: 2

In [10]: s.ix[5.0]
Out[10]: 2

In [11]: # non-fallback location based should raise this error (__getitem__,ix fallback here)

In [12]: s.loc[4.0]
KeyError: 'the label [4.0] is not in the [index]'

In [13]: s[4.0] == s[4]
Out[13]: True

In [14]: s[4] == s[4]
Out[14]: True

# [],ix,s.ix[2:5]
loc is clear about slicing on the values ONLY

In [11]: s[2:5]
Out[11]: 
2.5    1
5.0    2
dtype: int64

In [12]: s.ix[2:5]
Out[12]: 
2.5    1
5.0    2
dtype: int64

In [2]: s.loc[2:5]
Out[2]: 
2.5    1
5.0    2
dtype: int64

In [15]: s.loc[2.0:5.0]
Out[15]: 
2.5    1
5.0    2
dtype: int64

In [16]: s.loc[2.0:5]
Out[16]: 
2.5    1
5.0    2
dtype: int64

In [17]: s.loc[2.1:5]
Out[17]: 
2.5    1
5.0    2
dtype: int64
```

Float Slicing now raises when indexing by a non-integer slicer

```
 In [1]: s = Series(np.arange(5))

In [2]: s
Out[2]: 
0    0
1    1
2    2
3    3
4    4
dtype: int64

In [3]: s[3.5]
KeyError: 

In [4]: s.loc[3.5]
KeyError: 'the label [3.5] is not in the [index]'

In [5]: s.ix[3.5]
KeyError: 'the label [3.5] is not in the [index]'

In [6]: s.iloc[3.5]
TypeError: the positional label [3.5] is not a proper indexer for this index type (Float64Index)
```
