Allow to pass name/options as third argument in standalone mode

[damianstasik]

This PR changes how router.add works:

// Name after route path + no need for an array when using more than one middleware
router.add('get', '/user/:id', 'user', isAuthenticated, someOtherMiddleware, (req, res) => {
    res.send('Hello!');
});

// ... but, you still can use array
router.add('get', '/post/:id', 'post', [someOtherMiddleware, (req, res) => {
    res.send('Hello!');
}]);

// Have more than one option? Just pass an object before your middlewares
router.add('get', '/page/:id', {name: 'page', caseSensitive: true}, (req, res) => {
    res.send('Hello!');
});

// Don't want to use a name? Sure, just ditch it
router.add('get', '/category/:id', someOtherMiddleware, (req, res) => {
    res.send('Hello!');
});

Closes #25

[alubbe]

slicing arguments prevents the whole function from being optimized by v8. I think that instead we should change the function to expect four arguments (method, path, options, callbacks) and, if options is a function or an array, set callbacks to options (or [options]) and then set options to an empty object.

[damianstasik]

Yes, I know and my first version was using Bluebird workaround, but even then function was marked as not optimized. Instead, I've used what was in the code:
https://github.com/visualfanatic/named-routes/blob/d24b2538213279cca0437224e8afbc30d36c1338/router.js#L312

[alubbe]

Thanks for putting together this PR!
I believe this PR also changes the behaviour of router.add so that it in addition to an array of callbacks/middlewares, it can now take any length of arguments. I think I prefer that behaviour, so now there are two options:

1. Update the tests to include cases with multiple callbacks without using arrays and update the documentation
2. Extract this change for a second PR
   What do you think?

[damianstasik]

Thanks for quick reply! I'll add a few new test cases and update the docs accordingly.

[damianstasik]

Sorry for the delay, but the missing tests are now included. @alubbe, could you verify if everything is now good? Would it be okay if I would rewrite the tests (add more cases and split existing into smaller groups)?

[alubbe]

Could you please update the docs, as well?
The tests are a left-over from the original fork and are in serious need of a makeover. Aside from new cases and smaller groups, the whole thing should really use describe and it instead of that object notation. So that would be two PRs - one converting the current tests into something more modern and another one adding / rewriting them.