Mailman 3 June 2009 - SciPy-Dev

Re: [SciPy-dev] Doc-ing classes and data attributes
by David Goldsmith June 20, 2009

June 20, 2009

Yup, thanks! DG --- On Fri, 6/19/09, Stéfan van der Walt <stefan(a)sun.ac.za> wrote: > From: Stéfan van der Walt <stefan(a)sun.ac.za> > Subject: Re: [SciPy-dev] Doc-ing classes and data attributes > To: "SciPy Developers List" <scipy-dev(a)scipy.org> > Date: Friday, June 19, 2009, 11:19 PM > Hi David > > 2009/6/20 David Goldsmith <d_l_goldsmith(a)yahoo.com>: > > Hi! The template http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/browser/trunk/doc/example.py#L37 > for documenting things doesn't seem like a very good > template for documenting objects, e.g., ufunc, and data (as > opposed to method) attributes of objects, e.g., > ndarray.dtype. Are there other templates for these > elsewhere? Thanks! > > Have a look at > > http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/wiki/CodingStyleGuidelines#docstring-standa… > > under the section "Documenting Classes". Is that what > you're looking for? > > Regards > Stéfan > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-dev mailing list > Scipy-dev(a)scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >

1 0

Doc-ing classes and data attributes
by David Goldsmith June 20, 2009

June 20, 2009

Hi! The template http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/browser/trunk/doc/example.py#L37 for documenting things doesn't seem like a very good template for documenting objects, e.g., ufunc, and data (as opposed to method) attributes of objects, e.g., ndarray.dtype. Are there other templates for these elsewhere? Thanks! DG

2 1

fix for ncx2 bug?
by Neal Becker June 18, 2009

June 18, 2009

As reported earlier, there is a bug in ncx2 that causes a strange discontinuity. Is there a patch available?

5 11

Requesting edit permissions
by Erik Tollerud June 18, 2009

June 18, 2009

I've registered the username 'eteq' on the docs page and am requesting edit permissions. I use numpy/scipy for nearly all of my research, and would like to make change to docs as I encounter something that I have to go figure out...

2 1

Last-minute reminder
by David Goldsmith June 18, 2009

June 18, 2009

Skypecon for Numpy doc summer marathon in 30 min. Skype d.l.goldsmith to join in. dg

1 0

Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion
by David Goldsmith June 17, 2009

June 17, 2009

Thanks, Josef. DG --- On Wed, 6/17/09, josef.pktd(a)gmail.com <josef.pktd(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: josef.pktd(a)gmail.com <josef.pktd(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion > To: "SciPy Developers List" <scipy-dev(a)scipy.org> > Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 5:35 PM > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:08 PM, > David Goldsmith<d_l_goldsmith(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, Robert Kern <robert.kern(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> From: Robert Kern <robert.kern(a)gmail.com> > >> Subject: Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion > >> To: "SciPy Developers List" <scipy-dev(a)scipy.org> > >> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 3:07 PM > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 16:45, <josef.pktd(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Robert > Kern<robert.kern(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 16:08, David > >> Goldsmith<d_l_goldsmith(a)yahoo.com> > >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> OK, this is where I chime in: should > the doc > >> be clarified, or does this seem like enough of an > arcane > >> deviation from "naive" Python practice that we'll > actually > >> want to modify the code (and thus postpone > modifying the doc > >> 'til that's done)? > >> >> > >> >> Clarify the documentation. > >> > > >> > I don't see why we should need to document > the usage > >> of positional keywords. > >> > > >> > The generated docstrings for the distribution > in > >> > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.stats.chi2.html?h… > >> > > >> > is pretty dense, and we don't need to load it > up with > >> a description > >> > how to use function arguments. > >> > > >> The docstring for the scipy.stats.distributions > module > >> could use a > >> warning. The distributions are complicated and > important > >> enough that > >> they deserve some tutorial-style documentation, > which would > >> be the > >> ideal place for this information. > >> > > > > Good "steerage," Robert, thanks! > > > > DG > > Everybody is welcome to clean up my draft for a stats > tutorial or > rewrite it to make it nicer > http://docs.scipy.org/scipy/docs/scipy-docs/tutorial/stats.rst/ > > so that it can actually be included in the published docs. > > Josef > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-dev mailing list > Scipy-dev(a)scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >

1 0

Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion
by David Goldsmith June 17, 2009

June 17, 2009

Good "steerage," Robert, thanks! DG --- On Wed, 6/17/09, Robert Kern <robert.kern(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: Robert Kern <robert.kern(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion > To: "SciPy Developers List" <scipy-dev(a)scipy.org> > Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 3:07 PM > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 16:45, <josef.pktd(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Robert Kern<robert.kern(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 16:08, David > Goldsmith<d_l_goldsmith(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> OK, this is where I chime in: should the doc > be clarified, or does this seem like enough of an arcane > deviation from "naive" Python practice that we'll actually > want to modify the code (and thus postpone modifying the doc > 'til that's done)? > >> > >> Clarify the documentation. > > > > I don't see why we should need to document the usage > of positional keywords. > > > > The generated docstrings for the distribution in > > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.stats.chi2.html?h… > > > > is pretty dense, and we don't need to load it up with > a description > > how to use function arguments. > > The docstring for the scipy.stats.distributions module > could use a > warning. The distributions are complicated and important > enough that > they deserve some tutorial-style documentation, which would > be the > ideal place for this information. > > -- > Robert Kern > > "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, > a harmless > enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to > interpret it as > though it had an underlying truth." > -- Umberto Eco > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-dev mailing list > Scipy-dev(a)scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >

2 1

Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion
by David Goldsmith June 17, 2009

June 17, 2009

OK, this is where I chime in: should the doc be clarified, or does this seem like enough of an arcane deviation from "naive" Python practice that we'll actually want to modify the code (and thus postpone modifying the doc 'til that's done)? DG --- On Wed, 6/17/09, josef.pktd(a)gmail.com <josef.pktd(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: josef.pktd(a)gmail.com <josef.pktd(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion > To: "SciPy Developers List" <scipy-dev(a)scipy.org> > Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 7:20 AM > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:43 AM, > Pauli Virtanen<pav(a)iki.fi> wrote: > > Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:37:10 -0400, josef.pktd > kirjoitti: > > [clip] > >> Positional arguments cannot be called as keyword > arguments, that is > >> standard python. > >> (on the other hand keyword arguments can be called > also as positional > >> arguments. > > > > Positional arguments can usually be called as keyword > arguments in > > standard Python. > > > > def foo(a): > > print a > > > > foo(a=5) > > > >> the signature and help has standard notation: > >> > >> eg. signature: np.maximum(x1, x2[, out]) > >> > >>>>> np.maximum(x1=[5], x2=[6]) > >> Traceback (most recent call last): > >> TypeError: 'x2' is an invalid keyword to maximum > > > > The only exception are functions provided by C > extension modules, and > > functions that use *args. > > > > Thanks, I didn't know this is possible. > > I found the explanation in the Python Reference Manual. But > I don't > thinks I have ever seen it used. And it looks a bit fragile > to me if > you want to refactor the argument list later by adding > *args), and I > get easily TypeErrors when mixing positional and keyword > arguments if > they are in the wrong sequence. > So, I don't see any gain using positional arguments as > keywords. > > The problem in this example is that the the generic > function cdf uses > *args, **kwds, and checks the arguments and does the > broadcasting > before dispatching to the private method _cdf. > > Calling the private method actually works with keywords > >>> scipy.stats.chi2._cdf(1, df=2) > 0.39346934028736652 > >>> scipy.stats.chi2._cdf(x=1, df=2) > 0.39346934028736652 > > > I forgot to mention earlier: The generated docs are a merge > between > generic and distribution specific docstrings. I never > checked whether > this merge is completely correct in all cases. > > Josef > > > -- > > Pauli Virtanen > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-dev mailing list > Scipy-dev(a)scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >

3 3

Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion
by David Goldsmith June 17, 2009

June 17, 2009

Oooops, just dawned on me: this is in SciPy, not NumPy - we don't have a Wiki-style editing interface set up for SciPy yet, do we? DG --- On Wed, 6/17/09, Robert Kern <robert.kern(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: Robert Kern <robert.kern(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion > To: "SciPy Developers List" <scipy-dev(a)scipy.org> > Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 2:13 PM > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 16:08, David > Goldsmith<d_l_goldsmith(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > OK, this is where I chime in: should the doc be > clarified, or does this seem like enough of an arcane > deviation from "naive" Python practice that we'll actually > want to modify the code (and thus postpone modifying the doc > 'til that's done)? > > Clarify the documentation. > > -- > Robert Kern > > "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, > a harmless > enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to > interpret it as > though it had an underlying truth." > -- Umberto Eco > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-dev mailing list > Scipy-dev(a)scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >

2 1

Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion
by David Goldsmith June 17, 2009

June 17, 2009

Roger. DG --- On Wed, 6/17/09, Robert Kern <robert.kern(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: Robert Kern <robert.kern(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion > To: "SciPy Developers List" <scipy-dev(a)scipy.org> > Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 2:13 PM > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 16:08, David > Goldsmith<d_l_goldsmith(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > OK, this is where I chime in: should the doc be > clarified, or does this seem like enough of an arcane > deviation from "naive" Python practice that we'll actually > want to modify the code (and thus postpone modifying the doc > 'til that's done)? > > Clarify the documentation. > > -- > Robert Kern > > "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, > a harmless > enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to > interpret it as > though it had an underlying truth." > -- Umberto Eco > _______________________________________________ > Scipy-dev mailing list > Scipy-dev(a)scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev >

1 0