Naming of Array.spox_var() and ndonnx.from_spox_var

[cbourjau]

We have had discussions recently about the naming of these functions. I believe there are two parts to consider here: the prefix and the suffix part.

Concerning the prefix, it might be valuable to harmonize the naming with the common unwrap prefix used in spox (e.g., Var.unwrap_tensor), which signals the fallibility nicely, IMHO. Concerning the suffix we may consider using only spox or var in the naming. Thus, I see the following options for the unwrap part:

• unwrap_var
• unwrap_spox
• unwrap_spox_var
  and one of the following constructor functions:
• from_var
• from_spox
• from_spox_var

I'd be in favor of unwrap_spox_var and from_spox_var. Any thoughts, @adityagoel4512 @neNasko1

[adityagoel4512]

The fallibility of spox_var is documented in the docstring although I agree with you saying that it might be clearer in unwrap_spox_var. I'm not so sure that this is a good enough reason for a breaking change given it is already clearly documented however. The ndonnx-Spox interoperability is used extensively in a lot of places so making the name nicer would have to be traded off against the churn required in dependent projects. Are there any other reasons changing the name is valuable to you?

[cbourjau]

We would deprecate the existing function for a while of course.

[adityagoel4512]

We should take advantage of not being 1.x and do this. Let's not give ourselves a strong deadline to remove spox_var but unwrap_spox_var is good to me 👍.