[Numpy-discussion] numpy.random.poisson docs missing "Returns"
David Goldsmith
d.l.goldsmith@gmail....
Sat Jun 26 19:37:22 CDT 2010
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Goldsmith
> <d.l.goldsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith
> >> <d.l.goldsmith@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?
>
(Almost) anything's possible... :-(
Well, here's what happened in the particular case of numpy's pareto:
The promotion to "Needs review" took place - interestingly - 2008-06-26
(yes, two years ago today), despite the lack of a Returns section; the
initial check-in of HOWTO_DOCUMENT.txt - which does specify that a Returns
section be included (when applicable) - was one week before, 2008-06-19.
So, it's not that surprising that this slipped through the cracks.
Pauli (or anyone): is there a way to search the Wiki, e.g., using a SQL-like
query, for docstrings that saw a change in status before a date, or between
two dates?
Thanks!
DG
>
> 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.
>
> Josef
>
>
> >
> > DG
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
--
Mathematician: noun, someone who disavows certainty when their uncertainty
set is non-empty, even if that set has measure zero.
Hope: noun, that delusive spirit which escaped Pandora's jar and, with her
lies, prevents mankind from committing a general suicide. (As interpreted
by Robert Graves)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100626/e2207dcf/attachment.html
More information about the NumPy-Discussion
mailing list