Reviews were conducted by @hplgit in #13 and @aashish24 in #6 (although I think the second review may be missing).
@hplgit submitted minor corrections that were accepted in #24. The editors decided that a modern comparison to the IPython Notebook as of 2014 was not necessary, and some more references were added.
It is the decision of the editors that this paper has passed the peer review standards set by the SciPy 2012 Organizing Committee. Thanks to everyone for their contribution.
Reviews were conducted by @hplgit in #13 and @aashish24 in #6 (although I think the second review may be missing).
@hplgit submitted minor corrections that were accepted in #24. The editors decided that a modern comparison to the IPython Notebook as of 2014 was not necessary, and some more references were added.
It is the decision of the editors that this paper has passed the peer review standards set by the SciPy 2012 Organizing Committee. Thanks to everyone for their contribution.