API Suggestion: Rename `.sql_schema()` to `.to_sqlalchemy_schema()`

[DeflateAwning]

I'd really suggest being explicit in conversions/interop with sqlalchemy, and avoid a generic assumption that "sql = sqlalchemy" in this library.

One day, you may wish to add support for sqlglot (a similar, well-supported sql manipulation tool that's arguably better-suited for non-ORM purposes). Making a sensible API for that will be easier if the sqlalchemy interop is explicit.

[borchero]

sqlalchemy_schema seems reasonable to me, given that we also have pyarrow_schema. Wdyt @AndreasAlbertQC @delsner ?

[delsner]

Yes, makes sense.

[AndreasAlbertQC]

I think one could easily argue either way, so unless there is a strong reason to change, I would not change :D

[DeflateAwning]

If one could argue against this, let's hear the argument. I honestly can't think of a good reason to leave it with such an unclear name.

[borchero]

I am in favor of sqlalchemy_schema because it's consistent with all the other package-specific functions we have and also aligns with the naming that we use for columns (i.e. sqlalchemy_column). My guess is that sql_schema was a naming-oversight in the initial implementation.

[delsner]

To be precise, we could name it sqlalchemy_columns since we're not returning a table or schema.