Tue Jun 1 04:50:46 CDT 2010
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Travis Oliphant <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2010, at 3:22 AM, email@example.com wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Travis Oliphant <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On May 31, 2010, at 9:16 AM, email@example.com wrote:
>>>> This is more about the process then the content, distributions was
>>>> Travis's baby (although unfinished), and most of his changes are very
>>>> good, but I don't want to look for the 5-10% (?) typos anymore.
>>> I really am not sure what the difference between looking at timeline of changes and a formal "review" process really is? In either case you are "looking for someone's mistakes or problems". I do think your estimate of typos is a bit aggressive. Really? 5-10% typos. What is the denominator?
>> I just replied for most of this.
>> My test run in the middle of the weekend (before I gave up), had about
>> 4 or 5 test failures in the new _logpdf _logcdf methods.
> In this particular case, you can just look at the pdf method and compare it with the logpdf method. I only added ones that were obvious. Are you running a test different from
>>>> from scipy.stats import test
no, I was running a variation on the new tests for logpdf logcdf, that
I have attached to the ticket
> to get these errors?
> Are you saying the skew and kurtosis test functions return different numbers than expected?
no, the methods in the distributions for distfn.stats(moments="sk") or
distfn.moment(3) or 4
I think, the f distribution is the only one where I went through the
formulas to find the typo.
I think skew and kurtosistests are ok, although I would have to look
it up to be sure.
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
More information about the SciPy-Dev