I can totally understand not duplicating documentation, but there are some overloaded functions for which the detailed docs seem like they’re in the wrong place.
One example is
This one (i.e. no parameters) has all the details except it describes parameters that it doesn’t accept. Whereas the “real one” (taking the parameters) refers to the default-param function.
I can’t think of others off the top of my head, but I recall running into this for other methods.
A related (minor) frustration of mine is that the search function of the online docs doesn’t distinguish between overloaded methods and so it’s difficult to find the one I want, especially when the one I want is only a stub pointing to another doc (that isn’t exactly what I want).
It would also be nice of the stub articles had a link to the article with the referenced details.
We hear you. We’re regularly wrestling with our documentation tool to see if we can improve its output. I don’t think any of us are satisfied with the complete output. The overloads suffer due to some other tradeoffs we’ve decided to make.
One newish feature is that all the documentation was moved into rsi.h (from unpublished source code). This serves two purposes (in theory). It should Intellisense for C++ users, and will also allow you to see the (raw) documentation when you peek definitions.
This is not a huge deal for me, but there wasn’t a “documentation” channel to put it in. I appreciate that the docs are as good as they are.