[SciPy-Dev] Clarification: is the Extended Summary section optional?
Tue Jun 1 15:48:08 CDT 2010
2010/6/1 Stéfan van der Walt <email@example.com>
> On 1 June 2010 13:32, David Goldsmith <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > The docstring Standard seems to be careful to note which sections are
> > considered optional, and the "Extended Summary" is *not* on that list.
> > However, I'm encountering many SciPy docstrings in the Wiki lacking this
> > section and yet marked as "Needs review": should I ignore this deficiency
> > and add a ticket to clarify the Standard, or should such docstrings be
> > back to "Being written"?
> Typically, there is no reason not to have an extended section. Can
> you give an example where it would seem unnecessary?
No: my position would appear to be the same as yours, and my inclination
would be to "revert" them to "Being written." I'm basically inviting people
to tell me that that would be too strict. :-) So far, it's +1 that it
> Unless those
> functions mentioned above are exceptional, we should probably add
> blurbs for them.
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SciPy-Dev