Feedback for the naming in Glad2
Hello,

First of all, **thank you** for the amazing work on the Rust generator, it works incredibly well and I am very pleased with the integration and the surrounding tools (like the webservice).

I do, however, want to give a piece of feedback using it and maybe you can share your opinion with me on the matter.

I noticed all the constants kept their original `GL_` prefix but the functions didn't. `glClearColor()` for example became `ClearColor()` with the expectation that the user is going to write `gl::ClearColor()` and therefore import the module with `use glad_gl::gl`, but now you get ugly repetitions like `gl::GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT`, which is also unsatisfactory.

* **One solution** could be to remove the `GL_` prefix from the constants to make things more uniform everywhere.

* **A much better solution** is to bring back the `gl` prefixes for functions.

After a bit of thinkering, I realised what drawn me to Glad's API was the expectation that the generated bindings would be more truthful to the original C-like OpenGL API. In that sense, I personally ended up going with the second approach, adding a `gl` prefix to all the functions in my `gl.rs` file and then I import the module with `use glad_gl::gl::*;` so that everything becomes in the scope.

This leads to much more familiar C-like code in the Rust unsafe blocks. e.g. :

```
glClearColor(0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0);
glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT);
```

It simplifies porting large amounts of existing engine code to Rust and has been working well for me.

What do you think?