René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"Should `make` replace `_make_tuples`?","articleBody":"Should we gradually replace `_make_tuples` with simply `make`? \r\n\r\nHere are my supporting arguments:\r\n1. The term _tuples_ comes from the relational model.   We are coming to the understanding that DataJoint is much closer aligned with the Entity-Relationship model.  In the ERM, the elements of sets are called \"entities\" rather than \"tuples\". \r\n2. We follow different name conventions in different languages.  For example, in MATLAB, we use camelCase and `_make_tuples` is called `makeTuples`.  In the common documentation, we have to spell both versions. \r\n3. The word `tuple` is overloaded since it has its own definition in Python.  `_make_tuples` always inserts what amounts to Python `dict`s rather `tuple`s.  \r\n\r\nMaking the callback simply `make` would obviate these issues.  Of course, we will keep things backward compatible to keep `_make_tuples` an acceptable name.\r\n\r\nWhat do you think?","author":{"url":"https://github.com/dimitri-yatsenko","@type":"Person","name":"dimitri-yatsenko"},"datePublished":"2017-10-25T21:35:47.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":22},"url":"https://github.com/387/datajoint-python/issues/387"}