[RFC]: rename primitive array `assert` packages

### Description

This RFC proposes renaming the following packages:

- [ ] `is-array-array` => `is-array-of-arrays`

- alias: `isArrayArray` => `isArrayOfArrays`

- [ ] `is-boolean-array` => `is-array-of-booleans`

- alias: `isBooleanArray` => `isArrayOfBooleans`

- [ ] `is-date-object-array` => `is-array-of-date-objects`

- alias: `isDataObjectArray` => `isArrayOfDateObjects`

- [ ] `is-function-array` => `is-array-of-functions`

- alias: `isFunctionArray` => `isArrayOfFunctions`

- [ ] `is-integer-array` => `is-array-of-integers`

- alias: `isIntegerArray` => `isArrayOfIntegers`

- [ ] `is-nan-array` => `is-array-of-nans`

- alias: `isNaNArray` => `isArrayOfNaNs`

- [ ] `is-negative-integer-array` => `is-array-of-negative-integers`

- alias: `isNegativeIntegerArray` => `isArrayOfNegativeIntegers`

- [ ] `is-negative-number-array` => `is-array-of-negative-numbers`

- alias: `isNegativeNumberArray` => `isArrayOfNegativeNumbers`

- [ ] `is-nonnegative-integer-array` => `is-array-of-nonnegative-integers`

- alias: `isNonNegativeIntegerArray` => `isArrayOfNonNegativeIntegers`

- [ ] `is-nonnegative-number-array` => `is-array-of-nonnegative-numbers`

- alias: `isNonNegativeNumberArray` => `isArrayOfNonNegativeNumbers`

- [ ] `is-nonpositive-integer-array` => `is-array-of-nonpositive-integers`

- alias: `isNonPositiveIntegerArray` => `isArrayOfNonPositiveIntegers`

- [ ] `is-nonpositive-number-array` => `is-array-of-nonpositive-numbers`

- alias: `isNonPositiveNumberArray` => `isArrayOfNonPositiveNumbers`

- [ ] `is-null-array` => `is-array-of-nulls`

- alias: `isNullArray` => `isArrayOfNulls`

- [ ] `is-object-array` => `is-array-of-objects`

- alias: `isObjectArray` => `isArrayOfObjects`

- [ ] `is-plain-object-array` => `is-array-of-plain-objects`

- alias: `isPlainObjectArray` => `isArrayOfPlainObjects`

- [ ] `is-positive-integer-array` => `is-array-of-positive-integers`

- alias: `isPositiveIntegerArray` => `isArrayOfPositiveIntegers`

- [ ] `is-positive-number-array` => `is-array-of-positive-numbers`

- alias: `isPositiveNumberArray` => `isArrayOfPositiveNumbers`

- [ ] `is-primitive-array` => `is-array-of-primitives`

- alias: `isPrimitiveArray` => `isArrayOfPrimitives`

- [ ] `is-probability-array` => `is-array-of-probabilities`

- alias: `isProbabilityArray` => `isArrayOfProbabilities`

- [ ] `is-safe-integer-array` => `is-array-of-safe-integers`

- alias: `isSafeIntegerArray` => `isArrayOfSafeIntegers`

- [ ] `is-string-array` => `is-array-of-strings`

- alias: `isStringArray` => `isArrayOfStrings`

- [ ] `is-symbol-array` => `is-array-of-symbols`

- alias: `isSymbolArray` => `isArrayOfSymbols`

### Rationale

As the project has grown and started accumulating custom array types (e.g., `BooleanArray`, `Complex128Array`, `Int64Array`, etc), older naming conventions are beginning to conflict with continued project evolution.

The most immediate example is `is-booleanarray` and `is-boolean-array`. Which is the assertion package for `BooleanArray` and which is for an array of booleans (e.g., `[ true, false, true ]`)? It is not obvious which is which and can be a point of confusion.

This RFC proposes migrating existing packages which refer explicitly to the contents of a collection and not to a particular instance type to a new naming convention which more explicitly indicates what the package is intended to test for and should avoid conflicts with any future array types (e.g., `StringArray`, `ObjectArray`, etc).

### Notes

Packages which are not included in the proposed migration:

- `is-between-array`
- `is-falsy-array`
- `is-finite-array`
- `is-truthy-array`
- `is-unity-probability-array`

These packages were considered to be (a) highly unlikely to conflict with future specialized array constructors and (b) not have good readability with the proposed naming convention (e.g., `isArrayOfBetween`).

### Related Issues

N/A

### Questions

1. The proposed changes will create quite a bit of churn throughout the project as many of these packages are heavily used. The question is then whether the churn is worth it. In my opinion, it is, but others may have different opinions.

2. Is there a better naming convention than the `*-of-*` proposal above?

3. JSDoc conventions are intentionally left out (e.g., `@param {NonNegativeIntegerArray}`). IMO, these also need to be migrated in order to avoid confusion with class instances, but I think this is something which can be addressed in a separate RFC, as it is not clear what the naming convention should be (e.g., `Array`, `Array`, something else?).

### Other

cc @Planeshifter as we previously discussed the confusion between `is-boolean-array` and `is-booleanarray`. This is my attempt to resolve that confusion.

Should this RFC be accepted and completed, we'll want to deprecate the existing packages and have them point to the new packages on both npm and GitHub.

### Checklist

- [x] I have read and understood the [Code of Conduct](https://github.com/stdlib-js/stdlib/blob/develop/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md).
- [x] Searched for existing issues and pull requests.
- [x] The issue name begins with `RFC:`.

Start by reviewing the listed primitive-array package names and searching the project for their uses. Consider the proposed *-of-* convention, the migration churn, JSDoc implications, and deprecation on npm and GitHub. Done means the naming approach is agreed and the resulting migration scope is defined.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.