On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith > <d.l.goldsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Something is systematically wrong if there are this many problems in the > > numpy.stats docstrings: numpy is supposed to be (was) almost completely > > ready for review; please focus on scipy unless/until the reason why there > > are now so many problems in numpy.stats can be determined (I suspect the > > numpy.stats code has been made to call the scipy.stats.distributions > module, > > and all those docstrings have been marked "Unimportant" - meaning do not > > edit - either permanently, in the case of the instances, or temporarily > in > > the case of the base classes from which the instances are created). > > > > Bottom line: if it doesn't start w/ scipy, leave it alone (for now). > > It's missing in several functions and incorrect docstrings have to be > corrected. Look at the log of e.g. pareto in the editor, the returns > have never been added, unless you find any missing revisions that are > not in the doc editor. > > Josef >
OK, I see it was promoted to "Needs review" very early in the first Marathon - before the Standard had been finalized? God help us: how many other numpy docstrings are improperly at "Needs review" because of this? Scheisse, numpy may not be as close to Ready For Review as we thought... DG
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion