[Numpy-discussion] numpy.random.poisson docs missing "Returns"
Sat Jun 26 17:52:14 CDT 2010
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Vincent Davis <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM, <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Goldsmith
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, <email@example.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith
> >>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>> > Something is systematically wrong if there are this many problems in
> >>> > numpy.stats docstrings: numpy is supposed to be (was) almost
> >>> > 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
> >>> > numpy.stats code has been made to call the scipy.stats.distributions
> >>> > module,
> >>> > and all those docstrings have been marked "Unimportant" - meaning do
> >>> > edit - either permanently, in the case of the instances, or
> >>> > 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
> >> - before the Standard had been finalized? God help us: how many other
> >> 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.
> Also several are missing examples but this is easy (copy past) with
> the tests I just added.
> I'm busy right now, but in a little bit I'll check when the Standard was
"finalized" and demote - until they can be thoroughly checked for Standard
compliance - to "Being Written" everything promoted to "Needs review" prior
to that time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion