chore(*): rename name and res

[Alex6323]

This PR renames some public API because I hope this will make it a bit easier for the user to tag/name/label results from a command, and later reference them again in follow-up commands. By no means I think this PR has to be merged. It's here to discuss whether we want to keep the old naming or whether we pick something else. IMHO the current naming is a bit confusing and favors conciseness, the new names are a bit less concise but I hope easier to understand for the user. I also added more docs to the methods in question to foster this even more.

[DaughterOfMars]

Sorry, but I really hate this. I'm not opposed to renaming them necessarily but I think the work of explaining their usage is up to the docs no matter what and I'd rather they be shorter rather than bloating the code with long identifiers.

[Alex6323]

Sorry, but I really hate this. I'm not opposed to renaming them necessarily but I think the work of explaining their usage is up to the docs no matter what and I'd rather they be shorter rather than bloating the code with long identifiers.

fair enough. I understand that you chose those names deliberately, but I still think that the naming is not very intuitive (even though it might be more practical if used often) and requires the user to study docs first in order to understand how the builder works. I my opinion we should reduce the entry effort for people as much as possible, and I am just wondering if that is "consice but a bit too generic names" like res and name are IMHO or "longer, more explicit names".

If you - for a second - forget, that you wrote this, would you immediatedly get that name and res are connected? Some people might also wonder, what do I name exactly? res can be confused with response. If it's not possible to understand an API without docs, then it is how it is, but I think this is not necessarily the case here. We can make an effort to make this clearer without having to consult the docs or the examples first.

Another problem with name is that you can actually provide mulitple "names" and not just a single.

Why do I think result_refs/result_ref is a good name?

1. Because we have methods like move_call, arguments, type_arguments that represent the components of a function signature, so that there's also a method result_ is not unexpected.
2. The connection between creating and using one is clearer (intellisense friendly)
3. It more clearly states that it creates/uses a reference to a MoveCall result.