[SciPy-Dev] Clarification: is the Extended Summary section optional?

[David Goldsmith]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:32 PM, David Goldsmith <d.l.goldsmith at gmail.com>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


I'm not talking about NumPy docstrings; I'm not looking at/touching NumPy
docstrings; I'm only going after low-hangingl SciPy fruit.

DG

> ; cain 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 moved back to "Being written"?
>
> DG
> --
> 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)
>



-- 
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...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20100602/661fd5f8/attachment.html>