Rename DisplayHandle convenience methods

[madsmtm]

In #70 (comment), we decided upon a naming scheme for our types, with the main motivation being "consistency" and "AndroidNDKHandle looks weird"¹.

I'm still mostly convinced that this is still the right direction to go in because it matches things like std::net::Ipv4Addr (if it was IPv4Addr, then we should've done something different).

We should apply this naming scheme to methods as well, in particular DisplayHandle::appkit and DisplayHandle::uikit need an extra _ to follow normal case-conversion rules.

Footnotes

1. This argument is weakened after https://github.com/rust-windowing/raw-window-handle/pull/214 where this type no longer exists. Now it's only RawWindowHandle::AndroidNdk vs. RawWindowHandle::AndroidNDK. ↩

[madsmtm]

I'm still on the fence about this, I think both uikit and ui_kit can work, opening this mostly to keep the discussion out of #214.

(I actually think UiKit looks weird, and that ui_view feels natural, so even if we were just talking Apple, there probably isn't really a perfect solution here).

[notgull]

I think ui_kit works weird, so I'd advocate for uikit.

[kchibisov]

Agree with @notgull here, same for appkit. The main reason is that in all places it's without _.

[madsmtm]

But you'd still prefer RawWindowHandle::UiKit over RawWindowHandle::UIKit? Or would you rather have us do the latter?

[kchibisov]

The rust naming rule is UiKit I believe.

[madsmtm]

The rust naming rule is UiKit I believe.

It is, but arguably so is ui_kit.

I dunno, we can leave it as-is if that's what y'all perfer.

[kchibisov]

The crate names we use in winit are appkit/uikit, so I'd probably have the names without _ here, so it kind of the same spelling.