It has been reported [numerous](https://github.com/planetis-m/naylib/issues/123) [times](https://github.com/planetis-m/naylib/issues/80) [already](https://github.com/planetis-m/naylib/issues/112) in my library.
New users of nim are often confused and scared by this warning. It creates anxiety, suggesting that the library is temporary, unpolished, and hacky. In that sense the warning does more harm than good. Besides telling users to fix the package structure, which I find unreasonable, why should they be concerned about it? As far as I can tell, it breaks nothing. raylib, raymath, reasings, and rmem do not collide with any other libraries besides other raylib bindings. Mixing them was an early idea, but it's not currently supported. But should I fix my package's structure? Let's look into that: * It's now too late to change anything as it would break a ton of code. * I stand by my decision to keep it simple and without a package namespace. It's part of naylib's philosophy to be user-friendly. * This decision aligns with other choices I've made, like not providing a dynamic linking option. Users only have to install one package, with no dependencies. * Using parts of naylib headers as standalone is a goal of upstream raylib. A naylib namespace would ruin that. (Due to inter-dependencies in the wrapper, I haven't achieved this fully yet, but I will look into it again. For the time being only rmem and reasings are truly standalone.) Is there any usefulness to this warning? Does it serve any meaningful purpose? If not, do you accept PRs to remove it?
