Rename bstr module/feature to byte_str

[clarfonthey]

This also renames the various features to use byte_str instead of bstr.

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: libs
• libs expanded to 12 candidates
• Random selection from JohnTitor, Mark-Simulacrum, nia-e

[theemathas]

Can we also have a doc alias or something, so when someone searches for bstr (like the crate name), they also find this?

[clarfonthey]

Thank you for reminding me; I'll add those to the types and the module.

EDIT: The types already have it, so, just the module, then.

[clarfonthey]

Yeah, okay, since the types have this, adding it to the modules is just extra noise:

[clarfonthey]

Note: the rustdoc links are annoying, but I'll finagle a fix for them.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I assume there's a "why" somewhere for this, can you expand the PR description to include it? The actual code changes seem fine (I guess modulo CI failure :)

[clarfonthey]

Gonna just nominate this so we can discuss this change. I think it's uncontroversial, but worth talking about.

@rustbot label:I-libs-nominated

[clarfonthey]

Discussion in the meeting was that it should be consistent, but before stabilisation we might rename it to bstr::BStr if people want that API instead.

For now, byte_str::ByteStr makes the most sense.

(To be clear, bstr::ByteStr and byte_str::BStr are both undesired.)

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.