[Numpy-discussion] numpy.random.poisson docs missing "Returns"

[David Goldsmith]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM, <josef.pktd at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Goldsmith
> <d.l.goldsmith at gmail.com> 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...

DG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100626/7b588b94/attachment.html>