On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Goldsmith > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Something is systematically wrong if there are this many problems in > the > >> > numpy.stats docstrings: numpy is supposed to be (was) almost > completely > >> > 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 > the > >> > numpy.stats code has been made to call the scipy.stats.distributions > >> > module, > >> > and all those docstrings have been marked "Unimportant" - meaning do > not > >> > edit - either permanently, in the case of the instances, or > temporarily > >> > 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 > Marathon > > - before the Standard had been finalized? God help us: how many other > numpy > > 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? >
(Almost) anything's possible... :-( Well, here's what happened in the particular case of numpy's pareto: The promotion to "Needs review" took place - interestingly - 2008-06-26 (yes, two years ago today), despite the lack of a Returns section; the initial check-in of HOWTO_DOCUMENT.txt - which does specify that a Returns section be included (when applicable) - was one week before, 2008-06-19. So, it's not that surprising that this slipped through the cracks. Pauli (or anyone): is there a way to search the Wiki, e.g., using a SQL-like query, for docstrings that saw a change in status before a date, or between two dates? Thanks! DG > > 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. > > Josef > > > > > > DG > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > -- Mathematician: noun, someone who disavows certainty when their uncertainty set is non-empty, even if that set has measure zero. Hope: noun, that delusive spirit which escaped Pandora's jar and, with her lies, prevents mankind from committing a general suicide. (As interpreted by Robert Graves)
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
