[Numpy-discussion] docstring suggestions

David Goldsmith d.l.goldsmith@gmail....
Sat Feb 13 22:56:05 CST 2010


On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Pierre GM <pgmdevlist@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 2010, at 11:01 PM, David Goldsmith wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Pierre GM <pgmdevlist@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 2010, at 8:14 PM, David Goldsmith wrote
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > The methods'  docstring are fine, but we could improve the way the
> corresponding function docstrings are created.
> >
> > Does anyone have an idea of how universal of a problem this is (i.e., is
> it just confined to ma)?
>
> Likely to be just a numpy.ma issue. I'll try to find some kind of fix.
>

Please don't misinterpret my statements to mean that I think this isn't
important and/or that you should feel solely responsible for a fix - I
sincerely just wanted to uncover the nature and extent of the problem.
Unfortunately, I still feel like I don't really understand the functional
origin of the problem, otherwise I'd be the first to be offering to help -
perhaps if you can explain to me what you think is happening...

DG


>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100213/273c2476/attachment.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list