[SciPy-dev] are masked array statistical function hidden intentionally?

[Pierre GM]

On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:38 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote:

> 2008/11/19 Pauli Virtanen <pav at iki.fi>:
>> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:04:01 -0500, josef.pktd wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Pierre GM <pgmdevlist at gmail.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> About the documentation: well, I guess I should take the blame  
>>>> for not
>>>> having written more thorough docstrings.  However, I'm not in  
>>>> charge of
>>>> building the whole doc.
>
>> Pierre -- the masked array documentation in Numpy Reference Guide is
>> especially lacking as not all MA functions are listed or the
>> functionality explained. I'm not so familiar with MA, so I would
>> appreciate help in writing the documentation for this part of Numpy.
>
> Pierre, if you aren't able to find the time for this, then it might be
> most productive (for you) to review the docstrings as I work on them.
> That way you're just checking that the documentation doesn't lie or
> miss any subtleties.


All,
I tend to edit the docstrings as I edit the code, and most functions/ 
methods do have a proper docstring that follows the numpy standard.  
There's definitely a lack of examples and see alsos, though...

I'm quite surprised to see that so many functions are not picked up  
during the doc build.

Pauli, could you point me towards the part of the autosummary/autodoc  
that lists the functions in a module ? Should I edit the docstring of  
the module to organize the output (using ..autofunction / ..automethod  
directives ? Is it legit to put sphinx directives/shortcuts in the  
doc, or are we still trying to ensure compatibility with an extra  
package?

Scott, thanks a lot for your suggestion, it'd be easier indeed for me  
to review stats.mstats functions docstrings than (re)write them.