Package Documentation Page ?

[SharathGa]

It would be useful if we add a documentation page for the library.

Any specific reason/decisions for just having the README?

@Chronocook @jameslamb @bburns632

[bburns632]

@SharathGa I don't believe there's a good reason not to have package docs. I think the README was just prioritized first.

Unless @jameslamb or @Chronocook provides a good reason not to do this in the next 24 hours, I'd say go for it. However, be aware that the focus of this package is educational. It is not intended that this package be used for the needs of real world applications, so the function docs might not need to be too heavy on technical details.

[Chronocook]

Agreed, no reason to not have proper docs. They'd should be pretty light. My eventual goal would be to have a few nice notebooks alongside the code so that someone who is learning could step through and learn one major concept per notebook. The first notebook could just be the basic feed forward and backprop concepts. Then we could get into other concepts like learning rate, etc..

[SharathGa]

@Chronocook

Got it, I will come up with a light weight docs for the package and you could take a look and suggest changes according to the scope of the package. I also like the idea of having a jupyter notebooks for individual concepts.