Rc/Arc needs a better name than `clone`

Seeing clone all over the codebases makes me cringe with no way to know if it's an expensive one or if it's just a reference increment. One has to dig back all the way to type to understand what it actually means.

Would it not make more sense to have a method like ref or similar that can be used instead of clone ? So, that's its explicit and clear. The ref method could just as well call clone internally. Or perhaps, new_ref. Or a name that makes more sense. Just not clone, (though that has become accepted today in the ecosystem) but the actual semantics are rather different.

Edit: Make it clear that I'm not suggesting that clone be renamed - That's neither my intent nor a solution to the issue. Just looking for potential way to mitigate this.

No implementation file, test, or entry point is named. Start by reading the issue discussion and the linked RFC repository context, then evaluate the proposed alternatives for making reference-count increments clearer than clone; done means reaching agreement on a concrete naming or API direction.