Reverted module selection feature. This is not really desired.

Users (or lovers) do not get to choose which implementation of
a module they would like to use.

The abstraction is for dealing with portability issues, not
for giving people the ability to choose an alternative
(inferior) backend. The best choice for any platform/situation
should at all times be the *default* for that platform/situation.
If this is not the case; it's a bug (that is easily fixed).

Any module should provide the functionality promised in the docs.
The lover (or user) should not care how, and if [s]he does, [s]he
does still not get to choose.

Also, a related note: duplication of wrapper code is something I
especially wanted to avoid when I first (or should I say ...
"eventually") formed the current architecture.

--HG--
branch : minor

src/modules/font/freetype/wrap_Font.cpp

@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ namespace freetype
 		0
 	};
 
-	int luaopen_love_font_freetype(lua_State * L)
+	int luaopen_love_font(lua_State * L)
 	{
 		if(instance == 0)
 		{

src/modules/font/freetype/wrap_Font.h

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ namespace freetype
 	int w_newRasterizer(lua_State * L);
 	int w_newGlyphData(lua_State * L);
 	int w_newFontData(lua_State * L);
-	extern "C" LOVE_EXPORT int luaopen_love_font_freetype(lua_State * L);
+	extern "C" LOVE_EXPORT int luaopen_love_font(lua_State * L);
 
 } // freetype
 } // font