About function names

What always confuses me: there are functions beginning with "log" that don't cause a logging action, but somehow change the logging behaviour.

Functions that actually log:
```
- log_level()
- log_fatal()
- log_error()
- log_warn()
- log_success()
- log_info()
- log_debug()
- log_trace()
- log_eval()
- log_failure()
- log_tictoc()
- log_separator()
- log_with_separator()
```
Functions that don't log, but change logger's behaviour:
```
- log_threshold()
- log_appender()
- log_formatter()
- log_layout()
- log_messages()
- log_warnings()
- log_errors()
- logger()
- delete_logger_index()
```
Helpers:
```
- with_log_threshold()
- log_shiny_input_changes()
- get_logger_meta_variables()
- log_namespaces()
- log_indices()
- ...
```
I know it's a bit late to change anything and breaks the API, but out of curiosity: Wouldn't the function names be more understandable if those that change logging behaviour would be prefixed with "logger_"? So
```
- logger()
- logger_threshold()
- logger_appender()
- logger_formatter()
- logger_layout()
- logger_messages()
- logger_warnings()
- logger_errors()
- logger_delete_index()
- logger_get_meta_variables()
- logger_get_namespaces()
- logger_get_indices()
```
Or is it just me?

Start by reviewing the listed logging functions and helpers in the issue, separating functions that emit messages from those that change logger behavior. Check the existing API and comment history before proposing any naming change; done would require an agreed, compatibility-aware scope for the public function names.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.