[SciPy-Dev] scipy.stats

josef.pktd@gmai... josef.pktd@gmai...
Tue Jun 1 03:22:08 CDT 2010

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Travis Oliphant <oliphant@enthought.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 2010, at 9:16 AM, josef.pktd@gmail.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.

Third and forth moments (skew, kurtosis) might still return about 5%
incorrect numbers, which I accept since it was written at a different
time. Same with many generic methods in stats.distributions that I
fixed two and a half years ago and which seems to never have worked
from what I inferred from the history.

denominator: functions/methods that return numbers
5-10% is just a guess, I never tried to measure it, maybe it's only
3%, but each one requires an afternoon to hunt down the reference and
the correct formula.


> -Travis
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev

More information about the SciPy-Dev mailing list