Add docs to paths.py

[gran4]

No description provided.

[gran4]

get_vertex_neighbours seems inefficient.
Should I add slots?

[gran4]

Should I add slots?

[eruvanos]

Looks good to me, I am unsure about the usage of google docs style, but I also filed a request in discord.
I would be fine with the change

[pushfoo]

tl;dr

1. Some of these changes are good
2. However, there are typos in the PR
3. We should wait on using Google style docstrings since it can break rendering

On Google docstrings

I've experimented with enabling Google docstrings locally & asked about next steps. I agree with einarf's recommendation that we should do the following:

1. Stick to our current docstring format for now
2. Use a conversion script to update docstrings in a dedicated PR when we're ready

get_vertex_neighbors

get_vertex_neighbours seems inefficient.

I agree there's room for some small optimizations here. However:

1. That would be oustide the scope of a doc-focused PR
2. The best approach to pathfinding is offloading it to non-Python code such as Rust or C++

Should I add __slots__?

Probably not in this PR, and I'm not sure about doing so in general. I think our pathfinding code is worth considering for refactoring in general, but it needs some careful consideration on how to do it right. It could be better to put a warning label on it and say that it's a suboptimal prototyping tool, but I'm not yet sure.

[gran4]

Well, I was asking:
get_vertex_neighbours seems inefficient.
Should I add slots?

not for this PR put in general.
I've already submitted a separate PR to add slots.

I'll change it to use the other style.

[einarf]

There are still some unresolved conversation here. What is the status on that?

[gran4]

There are still some unresolved conversation here. What is the status on that?

@einarf sorry for the delay. I have been busy with finals, but school is over so I have time now. The PR is ready for review.