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

But there's no rush for that. We'll open a separate issue about the new
function and discuss its name when the time comes.

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 5:14 AM Matt Haberland <[email protected]>
wrote:

> 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]