[SciPy-dev] stats confusion

[josef.pktd at gmail.com]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:08 PM, David Goldsmith<d_l_goldsmith at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- On Wed, 6/17/09, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [SciPy-dev] stats confusion
>> To: "SciPy Developers List" <scipy-dev at scipy.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 3:07 PM
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 16:45, <josef.pktd at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Robert Kern<robert.kern at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 16:08, David
>> Goldsmith<d_l_goldsmith at 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?highlight=chi2#scipy.stats.chi2
>> >
>> > 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