Passing editor to attach() is confusing

[oleq]

ATM you can do

CKEditorInspector.attach( instance )
CKEditorInspector.attach( 'name', instance )

After https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor5-inspector/pull/46/files, it will be

CKEditorInspector.attach( instance, { opts } )
CKEditorInspector.attach( 'name', instance, { opts } )

That's a lot of cases to handle and it could be confusing. I'm for changing the API to something simpler, so there are always max 2 arguments:

CKEditorInspector.attach( instance, { opts } )
CKEditorInspector.attach( [ 'name', instance ], { opts } )

Or even

CKEditorInspector.attach( instance, { opts } )
CKEditorInspector.attach( { name: instance, otherName: otherInstance }, { opts } )

cc @mlewand @Reinmar

[mlewand]

@oleq just for me to understand better, why is name required by the inspector in a first place?

[oleq]

So when you have 10 editors in a single web page (they could be very similar, having the same content, being empty), you know which one you inspect:

For instance, you can have a form with 10 fields, each one a different editor. Without it, they would be named "editor-1", "editor-2", etc.. You'd rather want to have "name-editor", "post-editor", "signature-editor", etc. instead.