Open tdealtry opened 1 week ago
In terms of implementing new written description (if this is chosen)
// *************************************
covarianceOsc::~covarianceOsc() {
// *************************************
Can't we have both? I agree we should expand description whnever we can
But I find code copy to be kinda usefull. It isn't just a copy but have all hyperlinks it make navigation much easier
Both is something I hadn't considered. Yes, that could be nice!
I suppose we can keep this open until we see whether the doxygen for something that is commented in both header & source file formats as we like
We've now got our doxygen auto-building here 🎉
But I've noticed that the format of the doxygen is to be a copy of the code e.g. here
Collectively, I think we need to decide - is this what we want the doxygen to be?
Personally, I would suggest that instead of a copy of the code, it should be a description of what each method does / data member represents.
Thoughts in emoticon poll format
Related to #47