> I think that throwing away the bigfloat version of Romberg without replacing
> it with a bigfloat version of some better numerical integration program
> would be a bad choice. Both Maple and Mathematica have bigfloat numerical
> integration.
I tend to think that the romberg code should stay as an alternative to
the quadpack, but that the third option (can't remember the name) is
superfluous since it performed worst among the three that Robert
tested. The Romberg code should be documented as having been
superseded for most purposes by quadpack.
> Removing a feature from Maxima on the grounds that [someone thinks that]
> most people are generally happy without it, would remove quite a few
> features! :)
True enough. I think one of Robert's concerns is that it's not
completely robust, having failed some of his tests. If a bigfloat
version of quadpack were available it would probably be wise to
deprecate romberg as suggested. For now, perhaps it's best to
deprecate Romberg in the documentation but leave it available in the
code.
--
Daniel Lakeland
dlakelan at street-artists.org
http://www.street-artists.org/~dlakelan