[SciPy-dev] Question about editing docs
Tue May 12 15:57:22 CDT 2009
Skipper Seabold wrote:
> I've been going through scipy.stats.mstats and the tests to get a
> better feel for masked arrays and how they are handled for statistical
> functions. I noticed what I believed to be an error in the examples
> of the docstring for mstats_basic.count_tied_groups, which I corrected
> here: <http://docs.scipy.org/scipy/docs/scipy.stats.mstats_basic.count_tied_groups/>.
> My question is (as you can see) I had to also correct some formatting
> (and there is still some to be done), but I don't think I should be
> doing this kind of thing incrementally. Or should I? Is there
> another way I can edit multiple docstrings to get them to conform to
> the numpy standard and rst when I notice something or is this best
> left to someone else? I see that mstats_basic "Needs Editing." Sorry
> if I'm missing something obvious. This wouldn't be the first
> Scipy-dev mailing list
My understanding is that virtually none of the stats functions have been
edited as part of the SciPy documentation marathon. This means that
nobody has edited the original docstring. Any effort to make the
docstrings conform to the standards is welcome.
Based on the Numpy documentation marathon, in my view you really need to
do each function separately. You can cut and paste followed any
necessary editing especially between scipy.stats and scipy.mstats
because the former use 'standard' numpy arrays and the latter uses
masked arrays. Ideally there should be a single version and the
associated docstring where possible (so far I have only managed to
supply patches for gmean and hmean).
Some of the functions are or should be depreciated but this information
is not in the docstring. For example the mean and std in stats are
depreciated because these duplicate the Numpy functions and I created
some tickets for others that should also be depreciated. So I would
recommend against documenting the depreciated functions.
More information about the Scipy-dev