Re: Deprecate `scipy.integrate.romberg`/`scipy.integrate.quadrature`?

We don't need to reclaim the name. Still, `quadrature` is a bit too generic
sounding for a function that shouldn't be relied on as a general purpose
routine.

The best reason for wanting to reuse the name is lack of imagination. If we
don't reclaim the name, what would a good name be for an improved general
purpose quadrature function with several methods? I suggested the verb
`quadrate`, but I don't think that's commonly used.
`scipy.integrate.integrate`?

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 1:16 AM Ralf Gommers <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:42 PM Matt Haberland <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi team,
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback on deprecating these functions. There was support
>> for deprecating them, but also some concerns, so the plan has changed to
>> the following:
>>
>>    - Deprecate `scipy.integrate.quadrature` (so we can reclaim the name
>>    for a more general-purpose function in the future).
>>
>>
> This is something we try to never do. There are very few examples of us
> deprecating and then removing a name, and then reintroducing it with
> different behavior. There has to be an exceptionally good reason to do so,
> and I don't see one in the PR discussion (it's quite long, so I may have
> missed it). I can't even think of a potential reason, because the
> `quadrature` name isn't special enough that you can't pick a different name
> for whatever you want/need here.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
>
>>    - Introduce `scipy.integrate.gauss_quad` as an alias for
>>    `scipy.integrate.quadrature`, and point users to `gauss_quad` in the
>>    `quadrature` deprecation messages.
>>    - Mark  `scipy.integrate.gauss_quad` and  `scipy.integrate.romberg`
>>    as legacy functions.
>>
>> We welcome additional feedback in gh-19510 (
>> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/19510).
>> Thanks,
>> Matt
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:10 PM Matt Haberland <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Team,
>>>
>>> `scipy.integrate.romberg` and `scipy.integrate.quadrature` do not
>>> reliably hit their target accuracies, and when they do, they typically
>>> require more function evaluations and take more wall clock time than
>>> `scipy.integrate.quad` (all with default settings). This is documented in
>>> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/18574#issuecomment-1703320598,
>>> which compares the accuracies, function call counts, and wall clock times
>>> on a benchmark set of ~800 integrals with known analytical solutions.
>>>
>>> gh-19510 (https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/19510) proposes to
>>> deprecate these functions, suggesting `scipy.integrate.quad` as a drop-in
>>> replacement. Please let us know your thoughts either here or in gh-19510!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Matt
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SciPy-Dev mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/scipy-dev.python.org/
>> Member address: [email protected]
>>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/scipy-dev.python.org/
> Member address: [email protected]
>

_______________________________________________
SciPy-Dev mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/scipy-dev.python.org/
Member address: [email protected]