class Fizz
# @property {String} Returns a nonsense string.
@accessor 'buzz',
get: -> "fizzbuzz"
class Foo
# @property {String} Returns a nonsense string.
@accessor 'bar',
get: -> "foobar"
# @property {Fizz} Returns the one true {Fizz fizz}.
@accessor 'fizz',
get: -> new Fizz()
# @property {Array<Fizz>} Returns an array of {Fizz fizzes}.
@accessor 'fizzes',
get: -> [new Fizz(), new Fizz(), new Fizz()]
###
Returns an array of {Fizz fizzes}.
@return {Array<Fizz>}
###
getFizzes: ->
[new Fizz(), new Fizz(), new Fizz()]
###
Returns the one true {Fizz fizzes}.
@return {Fizz}
###
getFizz: ->
new Fizz()
The resulting documentation seems inconsistent about what is and isn't linked:
Ideally Fizz in (Fizz) fizz and (Array<Fizz>) fizzes, {Fizz fizz} and {Fizz fizzes}, and Array<Fizz> would be linked. If that's the intended behavior, would it be feasible to start parsing @property tags for that kind of link?
I created a couple of sample classes:
The resulting documentation seems inconsistent about what is and isn't linked:
Ideally
Fizz
in(Fizz) fizz
and(Array<Fizz>) fizzes
,{Fizz fizz}
and{Fizz fizzes}
, andArray<Fizz>
would be linked. If that's the intended behavior, would it be feasible to start parsing@property
tags for that kind of link?