Using retrodesign vs. retro_design for the simulation based versus closed-form version of the core function is just... not a good idea. It should be clearer which is which, not sure what I was thinking at the time other than wanting to keep retrodesign as the simulation based solution name because that's what it is in the original papers.
I will probably preserve retrodesign's name and soft-deprecate retro_design by pointing it to a clearer name like retrodesign_closedform (will think on the final name).
Using
retrodesignvs.retro_designfor the simulation based versus closed-form version of the core function is just... not a good idea. It should be clearer which is which, not sure what I was thinking at the time other than wanting to keep retrodesign as the simulation based solution name because that's what it is in the original papers.I will probably preserve
retrodesign's name and soft-deprecateretro_designby pointing it to a clearer name likeretrodesign_closedform(will think on the final name).