Rename `Fuse.Browser` to `Fuse.Env`

partially resolved by https://github.com/jdalton/fusejs/commit/a4d4d306a7b00f4a0bdd4731034dfb3a25cd15f9

A note on changing Fuse.Env.Feature(...) to Fuse.Env.hasFeature(..).

Currently there is a Fuse.Env.Feature.set(...) and Fuse.Env.Feature.unset(...) would changing to
hasFeature and hasBug make setting new checks seem awkward?

Fuse.Env.hasFeature.set({...});

Yep, that definitely would.

A possible alternative might be to have two arguments for setting
features/bugs and one argument for getting them:

Fuse.Env.hasFeature('ELEMENT_PROPERTIES_ARE_ATTRIBUTES')
//=> true (if IE)
Fuse.Env.hasFeature('IE_IS_A_BUGGY_BROWSER', function(){
    return true;
});
//Returns the setter function

Or maybe even Fuse.Env.addFeature and addBug...

Currently Fuse.Env.hasFeature('SOME_FEATURE', 'ANOTHER_FEATURE') will return true only if both features are true.
This may be confusing so I will probably drop this usage.

I'd rather have a way to test multiple features. It's actually pretty useful. What is setting/unsetting used for?

setting and unsetting are for adding and removing tests.

maybe Fuse.Env.addFeatureTest(...) too verbose... I dig how short addFeature is but the name is misleading cause its adding check not extending the feature-set of the environment.

I think set/unset seem like weird names for adding/removing user-defined feature tests. They sound more like toggling something on and off. I also think that hasFeature.set (method on method) and overloaded hasFeature are awkward.

I would rather go with:

Fuse.Env.hasFeature(testName1[, testName2[, ...]]);
Fuse.Env.addFeatureTest(testName, testBody);

The downside is that hasFeature('foo', 'bar') looks a bit awkward but I don't think it's worth adding something like hasFeatures for multiple tests support (or maybe hasFeature can be renamed to hasFeatures)

I agree and think allowing more than 1 on a singular name is fine.

currently the addFeatureTest equive allows only passing an object, but we can make that optional,
1 argument -> object; 2 -> name and test

Doesn't passing one object do the same (but better) of N parameters?

.addFeatureTest({
  name: 'foo'
  ,test: fn
  ,other: 'we can add and deprecate values here freely'
  ,unlike: 'when adding/removing additional passed in args'
})

@phred I was talking about just Fuse.Env.hasFeature(testName1[, testName2[, ...]]);.

Which would basically be the quiv of hasFeature(testName1) && hasFeature(testName2) && hasFeature(textName3)

Ya I would say for addFeatureTest a Fuse.Env.addFeatureTest(object) and Fuse.Env.addFeatureTest(name, test) is fine, no need to allow n number of arguments for that.