[Numpy-discussion] numpy.random.poisson docs missing "Returns"
Sat Jun 26 17:22:33 CDT 2010
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Goldsmith
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith
>> <email@example.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.
> 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.
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion