On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 05:13:39PM -0800, r-gaia-cs wrote:
> > +      }
> > +     ],
> > +     "prompt_number": 4
> > +    },
> > +    {
> > +     "cell_type": "markdown",
> > +     "metadata": {},
> > +     "source": [
> > +      "As you can see `statsmodels` lets us use the names of the columns in our dataframe\n",
> > +      "to clearly specify the form of the statistical model we want to fit.\n",
> > +      "This also makes the code more readable since the model we are fitting is written in a nice,\n",
> > +      "human readable, manner.\n",
> > +      "The `summary` method gives us a visual representation of the results.\n",
> > +      "This summary is nice to look at, but it isn't really useful for doing more computation,\n",
> > +      "so we can look up particular values related to the regression using the `regr_results` member variables.\n",
> > +      "These are like methods, but instead of functions they are variables that are attached to `regr_results`."
> 
> Instead of "member variables" could we use "fields", "attributes" or "properties"?

I'd prefer “attributes” or “data attribtes”, to match the Python docs
[1] and get/setattr().  I'm not sure about the “data” qualifier,
presumably methods and data attributes are both subsets of generic
attributes.  get/setattr definately work for both types.  I'm not sure
if talking about non-method attributes as a distinct idea is worth the
trouble though.  Can't we just have “attributes, some of which are
methods”?

[1]: http://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/classes.html#instance-objects