Python documentation

[wenwei-dev]

No description provided.

[Necr0x0Der]

I see a few minor typos in the docstrings, and some docstrings look not too informative. @glicerico , will you have time to improve Python docstrings in this PR? If yes, please, make them as suggestions.

[luketpeterson]

I see a few minor typos in the docstrings, and some docstrings look not too informative. @glicerico , will you have time to improve Python docstrings in this PR? If yes, please, make them as suggestions.

@wenwei-dev , If you notice a corresponding issue in the C API docs, please feel free to fix / improve it there too.

[glicerico]

I see a few minor typos in the docstrings, and some docstrings look not too informative. @glicerico , will you have time to improve Python docstrings in this PR? If yes, please, make them as suggestions.

@Necr0x0Der There were too many changes to make in suggestions.
Not sure if it's the best way, but I created a PR to @wenwei-dev 's branch for this PR.
wenwei-dev#4

[Necr0x0Der]

I see a few minor typos in the docstrings, and some docstrings look not too informative. @glicerico , will you have time to improve Python docstrings in this PR? If yes, please, make them as suggestions.

@Necr0x0Der There were too many changes to make in suggestions. Not sure if it's the best way, but I created a PR to @wenwei-dev 's branch for this PR. wenwei-dev#4

Thanks, this seems to be convenient enough. I'll try to take a look in a few days.

[Necr0x0Der]

I see a few minor typos in the docstrings, and some docstrings look not too informative. @glicerico , will you have time to improve Python docstrings in this PR? If yes, please, make them as suggestions.

@Necr0x0Der There were too many changes to make in suggestions. Not sure if it's the best way, but I created a PR to @wenwei-dev 's branch for this PR. wenwei-dev#4

Great work. I didn't verify everything carefully, but looks good. I added a few minor comments. It would be nice to merge after resolving them.

[Necr0x0Der]

@luketpeterson , will you take a look, or is it ok to merge?

[luketpeterson]

Some of my comments are possibly a bit pedantic. But my main issue is whether we should be documenting (even if only in private methods) interoperation between HyperonPy and HyperonC. Documenting it might give people the sense that this is an intended use case, which, in my opinion, it certainly isn't.

[Necr0x0Der]

Thanks, @luketpeterson , I've committed your suggestions. As for

But my main issue is whether we should be documenting (even if only in private methods) interoperation between HyperonPy and HyperonC. Documenting it might give people the sense that this is an intended use case, which, in my opinion, it certainly isn't.

I would care more about people who needs to make a deeper dive into the code, because something is missing in examples or even APIs now, rather than rare users who would really misuse this functionality. I don't claim that we should document interoperation between HyperonPy and HyperonC, but I wouldn't remove it if this documentation exists.

[Necr0x0Der]

I'm merging it. Any further improvements can be made in follow up PRs if needed.