[SciPy-dev] stats confusion

David Goldsmith d_l_goldsmith@yahoo....
Wed Jun 17 19:08:10 CDT 2009


Good "steerage," Robert, thanks!

DG

--- On Wed, 6/17/09, Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion
> To: "SciPy Developers List" <scipy-dev@scipy.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 3:07 PM
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 16:45, <josef.pktd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Robert Kern<robert.kern@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 16:08, David
> Goldsmith<d_l_goldsmith@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OK, this is where I chime in: should the doc
> be clarified, or does this seem like enough of an arcane
> deviation from "naive" Python practice that we'll actually
> want to modify the code (and thus postpone modifying the doc
> 'til that's done)?
> >>
> >> Clarify the documentation.
> >
> > I don't see why we should need to document the usage
> of positional keywords.
> >
> > The generated docstrings for the distribution in
> > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.stats.chi2.html?highlight=chi2#scipy.stats.chi2
> >
> > is pretty dense, and we don't need to load it up with
> a description
> > how to use function arguments.
> 
> The docstring for the scipy.stats.distributions module
> could use a
> warning. The distributions are complicated and important
> enough that
> they deserve some tutorial-style documentation, which would
> be the
> ideal place for this information.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Kern
> 
> "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma,
> a harmless
> enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to
> interpret it as
> though it had an underlying truth."
>   -- Umberto Eco
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-dev mailing list
> Scipy-dev@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
> 


      


More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list