putting "nim" in the package name is inelegant. if you keep the module name the
same as the package/repository name (which you should), you end up importing a
module with "nim" in the name in nim, which is redundant. if you omit the "nim"
from the module name but keep it in the package name, now they're different,
which is bad.moreover (to use the given suggestion as an example but this is
really a general comment) "falconcrypt-nim" sounds as if it's the nim bindings
to a hypothetical existing library called "falconcrypt". is there a falconcrypt
that isn't nim? if not, qualifying the name is redundant.