[Numpy-discussion] docstring suggestions

David Goldsmith d.l.goldsmith@gmail....
Fri Feb 12 19:14:00 CST 2010


On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Pierre GM <pgmdevlist@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 2010, at 4:24 PM, David Goldsmith wrote:
> >
> > OK, OK, Ok, it's not worth getting into a flame war over.  We ask people
> who are going to be working on the docstrings to subscribe to scipy-dev;
> this is not the same thing as being an "innocent bystander" asking a
> question or making a comment - I retract the request.
> >
> > Now, does anyone have anything useful to say about OP's original second
> problem?
>
> Yes: write a proper docstring, or find me a better way to automatically
> create the docstring of a function from the docstring of the corresponding
> method (or vice-versa) than we have now for numpy.ma. I agree that the
> current method is not ideal, but at least you get some kind of info.
>

Ah, now I understand.  We've been here before:

http://docs.scipy.org/numpy/Questions+Answers/#documenting-equivalent-functions-and-methods

No "canonical answer" has been recorded, but Scott Sinclair commented:

"In the the masked array module we should doc the methods. The functions
automatically have the same docstring."

Is the present issue an instance where Scott's second statement is invalid,
an instance where its validity is resulting in a poor docstring for the
function, or an instance in which Scott's "recommendation" was not
followed?

In any event, Ralf Gommers agreed w/ Scott's first statement, I'm neutral,
and no one else appears to have "voted"...

DG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100212/9d087cef/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list