[WIP] lib: rename functions named value

[LiviaMedeiros]

Refs: #57899
This requires adjusting linter rules. Or slapping // eslint-disable-line func-name-matching and regression tests as temporal solution.

If anyone is willing to make this into linter rule, feel free to takeover this.

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/startup
• @nodejs/streams
• @nodejs/test_runner
• @nodejs/web-standards

[ljharb]

it'd be great to get a PR that just fixes the value-named functions and disables the lint rule so that it can be released and maximally backported.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 97.01493% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 90.25%. Comparing base (af85f3f) to head (8345a46).
Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lib/internal/per_context/domexception.js	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
lib/internal/util.js	95.83%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #57901      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.25%   90.25%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         630      630              
  Lines      185697   185957     +260     
  Branches    36409    36447      +38     
==========================================
+ Hits       167603   167834     +231     
- Misses      10998    11003       +5     
- Partials     7096     7120      +24     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/fs.js	98.26% <100.00%> (ø)
...internal/bootstrap/web/exposed-window-or-worker.js	93.79% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/internal/console/constructor.js	99.41% <100.00%> (+0.87%)	⬆️
lib/internal/streams/writable.js	96.64% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
lib/internal/util/types.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/internal/worker/io.js	99.19% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
lib/zlib.js	98.22% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
lib/internal/per_context/domexception.js	75.81% <0.00%> (ø)
lib/internal/util.js	95.74% <95.83%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

... and 47 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[aduh95]

Let's set up a util to simplify that

Suggested change

	function hasInstanceFn(instance) {
	if (FunctionPrototypeSymbolHasInstance(this, instance)) return true;
	if (this !== Writable) return false;
	return instance && instance._writableState instanceof WritableState;
	};
	ObjectDefineProperty(hasInstanceFn, 'name', {
	__proto__: null,
	value: '[Symbol.hasInstance]',
	writable: false,
	enumerable: false,
	configurable: true,
	});
	ObjectDefineProperty(Writable, SymbolHasInstance, {
	__proto__: null,
	ObjectDefineProperty(Writable, SymbolHasInstance, {
	__proto__: null,
	value: setName(function(object) {
	if (FunctionPrototypeSymbolHasInstance(this, object)) return true;
	if (this !== Writable) return false;
	return object && object._writableState instanceof WritableState;
	}, '[Symbol.hasInstance]'),

[LiviaMedeiros]

Yep. I'm thinking of util that would take the symbol directly and [${kPrivateProperty.toString()}]-fy it.
Fixing something like

for (const prop of Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(require('console').Console.prototype))
  console.log(prop, '-->', require('console').Console.prototype[prop]);

will definitely require a helper function. 😅