[SciPy-Dev] Clarification: is the Extended Summary section optional?

Scott Sinclair scott.sinclair.za@gmail....
Wed Jun 2 00:41:10 CDT 2010

On 1 June 2010 22:48, David Goldsmith <d.l.goldsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/6/1 Stéfan van der Walt <stefan@sun.ac.za>
>> On 1 June 2010 13:32, David Goldsmith <d.l.goldsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The docstring Standard seems to be careful to note which sections are
>> > considered optional, and the "Extended Summary" is *not* on that list.
>> > However, I'm encountering many SciPy docstrings in the Wiki lacking this
>> > section and yet marked as "Needs review": should I ignore this
>> > deficiency
>> > and add a ticket to clarify the Standard, or should such docstrings be
>> > moved
>> > back to "Being written"?
>> Typically, there is no reason not to have an extended section.  Can
>> you give an example where it would seem unnecessary?
> No: my position would appear to be the same as yours, and my inclination
> would be to "revert" them to "Being written."

Wouldn't it better to revert them to "Needs editing" instead? The
"Being written" status implies that someone is actively working on the


More information about the SciPy-Dev mailing list