On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:37:22 -0700, David Goldsmith wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM, wrote:
> [clip]
> >> Is there a chance that some changes got lost?
> >
> > (Almost) anything's possible... :-(
>
> There's practically no change o
Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:37:22 -0700, David Goldsmith wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM, wrote:
[clip]
>> Is there a chance that some changes got lost?
>
> (Almost) anything's possible... :-(
There's practically no change of edits getting lost. There's a change of
them being hidden if things a
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Goldsmith
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith
> >> wrote:
> >> > Something is systematically wrong if there are this many problems in
> t
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Vincent Davis wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM, wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Goldsmith
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Someth
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Goldsmith
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith
>>> wrote:
>>> > Something is systematically wrong if there are this many problems in the
>>>
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Goldsmith
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith
>> wrote:
>> > Something is systematically wrong if there are this many problems in the
>> > numpy.stats docstrings: numpy is supposed to be (w
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith
> 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
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:56 PM, David Goldsmith
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
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith
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
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.s
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Vincent Davis wrote:
> numpy.random.poisson docs missing "Returns"
> http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.random.poisson.html#numpy.random.poisson
You could just copy a generic Returns section to all of these. They
all return a sample (array o
numpy.random.poisson docs missing "Returns"
http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.random.poisson.html#numpy.random.poisson
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discus
12 matches
Mail list logo