Rethink directive and option names

[felix-hilden]

I didn't give them much thought, but now would be the good time to change them since changes won't disrupt too many users.

• codeautolink_autodoc_inject: fine in my opinion
• code-refs: meh, could be example-links or code-examples
• concat-blocks: fine, but it's a bit ambiguous to a reader that doesn't know it's from this extension. Could be confused to actually concatenating code blocks.
• implicit-import: descriptive once you know it, but again I feel like this could be confusing at first
• autolink-skip: absolutely fine

[felix-hilden]

codeautolink_default_import is about to be a thing in #31, and Zac suggested a better name could be codeautolink_block_prelude. Ideally it would be similar to implicit-import (or what we change it to) in some way.

Let's make sure to get these changes in before the next release so default imports only exist with one name.

[felix-hilden]

I'll let this sit overnight, but I think in the absence of other comments we'll go with:

• .. autolink-examples::
• .. autolink-skip::
• .. autolink-concat::
• .. autolink-preface::
• codeautolink_global_preface
• codeautolink_autodoc_inject

Consistency and explicitness is on point here in my opinion. But I'm so tempted to change it from "preface" to "prelude" though 😄

If possible, we could also allow the preface directive to contain multiple lines. There's no real reason for the single line restriction. And I think it is important to highlight (or not obscure the fact) that the global configuration preface is added to all blocks even if a preface is defined already.

[Zac-HD]

Those look great to me - thanks for putting the thought into good names so early 🥰