On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Vincent Davis <vinc...@vincentdavis.net>wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Goldsmith > > <d.l.goldsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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... > > > > Is there a chance that some changes got lost? > > > > I thought I had edited random.pareto to note that it is actually Lomax > > or Pareto II. But I'm not completely sure I actually did it, and not > > just intended to do it. I don't see any record in the doc editor, so > > maybe I never did edit it. > > Also several are missing examples but this is easy (copy past) with > the tests I just added. > Vincent > > I'm busy right now, but in a little bit I'll check when the Standard was "finalized" and demote - until they can be thoroughly checked for Standard compliance - to "Being Written" everything promoted to "Needs review" prior to that time. DG
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
