On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Pierre GM <pgmdevl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2010, at 11:01 PM, David Goldsmith wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Pierre GM <pgmdevl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2010, at 8:14 PM, David Goldsmith wrote > > > > > Is the present issue an instance where Scott's second statement is > invalid, an instance where its validity is resulting in a poor docstring for > the function, or an instance in which Scott's "recommendation" was not > followed? > > > > The methods' docstring are fine, but we could improve the way the > corresponding function docstrings are created. > > > > Does anyone have an idea of how universal of a problem this is (i.e., is > it just confined to ma)? > > Likely to be just a numpy.ma issue. I'll try to find some kind of fix. > Please don't misinterpret my statements to mean that I think this isn't important and/or that you should feel solely responsible for a fix - I sincerely just wanted to uncover the nature and extent of the problem. Unfortunately, I still feel like I don't really understand the functional origin of the problem, otherwise I'd be the first to be offering to help - perhaps if you can explain to me what you think is happening... DG > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion