Improved docstrings

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 172

• 28 of 38 (73.68%) changed or added relevant lines in 5 files are covered.
• 1 unchanged line in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.5%) to 79.919%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
apertium/init.py	6	8	75.0%
apertium/analysis/init.py	2	4	50.0%
apertium/generation/init.py	7	9	77.78%
apertium/translation/init.py	12	16	75.0%
<!--	Total:	28	38	73.68%	-->

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
apertium/generation/init.py	1	90.0%
<!--	Total:	1		-->

Totals
Change from base Build 159:	-0.5%
Covered Lines:	593
Relevant Lines:	742

---

💛 - Coveralls

[sushain97]

This has a number of unrelated changes. Could you send a PR with just the doc changes so that I can review it properly? Also, I don't think dunder methods like str, repr and init need docstrings. I suggest using the docs from http://docs.python-requests.org/en/master/api/#main-interface as an example of how these ought to look.

[orgh0]

@sushain97 I understand, this must be pretty huge. I'll try to clean up the PR. :)

[orgh0]

@sushain97 The improved docstring commit was made by me on a version of the code from after improved repr, so, don't you think it's best if that gets merged first? The order of changes are in order of the PRs made.

[sushain97]

The improved docstring commit was made by me on a version of the code from after improved repr, so, don't you think it's best if that gets merged first?

Sure, but now that PR blocks this one and I can't really review it independently. Ideally, they would not depend on each other.