Doxygen format

[tdealtry]

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

• 👍 for old code copy
• 👎 for new written description

Related to #47

[tdealtry]

In terms of implementing new written description (if this is chosen)

• Standard convention is, I believe, to add to doxygen to header file
• We may need to modify the comments in the source file around method declariations

 // *************************************
covarianceOsc::~covarianceOsc() {
// *************************************

[KSkwarczynski]

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

[tdealtry]

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