Provide longer names

[LilithHafner]

As Charimarks.jl has gained popularity and started to get used outside of the REPL, it makes sense to move to longer names for @b and @be.

What sort of longer names do folks want?

A. @btime/@benchmark does not make sense because @b, unlike BencharmkTools.@btime, neither prints runtime data nor returns the evaluation result
B. @benchmark_summary/@benchmark_full works, though very verbose, and precludes adding an even more informative version that saves more data
C. @bench/@benchmark is fun and silly and concise while still being clear that we're benchmarking. It still relies on the pun: shorter name = shorter results.

---

I would implement this by adding long names as an option and then maybe deprecating the use of short names in packages and scripts. I do not currently plan to deprecate the use of short names at the REPL.

Alternatively, I could export the long names and publicize the short alternatives, like Unitful.

Originally posted by @LilithHafner in #100 (comment)

[Tortar]

I vote C. because it seems the clearest and not-too-verbose alternative and I like the pun ;-)

[Tortar]

what about also (manipulated suggestion from the other options in #100) D. @minbench and @fullbench? Seem like not too verbose to me, and the macros are different from BenchmarkTools

[alfaromartino]

I like @minbench and @fullbench more, although I'd suggest @minibench or @litebench for the former. They keep clarity, while keeping conciseness.
Note that @bench and @benchmark are problematic for tab completion, as they start with the same letters.

[ajinkya-k]

why not @chair and @chairmark respectively? This makes sure that the names don't clash with BenchmarkTools macros, and is true to the package name!