GDScript documentation comments for constructors

[Iakobs]

Hi, I'm not sure if this discussion belongs to this section, but I guess it's fine.

The thing is that with GDScript documentation comments you can document constructors, but they appear in the Methods section of the generated documentation, instead of in a section of their own, like native GDScript types do (e.g. the String class).

I've searched the internet to see if this is achieved somehow but I couldn't find anything. Does this make sense as a feature proposal?

[dalexeev]

Constructors are placed in a separate section only for built-in types (Vector2, Color, etc.). I think there are some reasons for this:

• Objects are different from built-in types in that you need to use .new() to call a constructor. E.g. Vector2() and Node.new().
• _init() is more of an initialization hook than a constructor. Class fields are initialized before _init() is called, and since class field initializers support non-constant expressions, you can call any method in them. Since some method can be called before _init(), it is not very correct to call it a constructor. The constructor is new(), but you cannot override it directly.
• Documentation of other programming languages ​​also does not always put constructors or initialization hooks in a separate section. For example, in PHP documentation __construct() is located among other methods (example).

[AThousandShips]

I'd say there isn't a way to declare constructors for custom types (in fact only built-in types have them as mentioned above) so I think it's a bit of a situation that isn't applicable

If the engine changed to allow constructors they'd fit in a distinct section though I'd say

[Mickeon]

I don't know. I think a section for the constructor makes sense, as one of the most important parts of a class. But currently that would have to be hardcoded specifically for custom classes (by fetching _init's signature and description), as built-in classes do not have this luxury.

[Iakobs]

I understand all this points, and I'm pretty much inclined to just close the discussion. Just one more question, what about a system to create user defined sections inside the generate docs, like the group annotations in the export variables? Maybe it's too much for this feature.

[AThousandShips]

I'd suggest opening a new discussion or better yet a proposal for that, that is an idea I do like myself, it would be useful for the general documentation itself and I'd be interested in looking at implementing it for the class bindings side (not familiar enough with the GDScript documentation code), assuming it gets popular

I can absolutely imagine this being useful for various classes with a lot of content

It'd be especially useful for things like @Global

[dalexeev]

Closing per the above comments. Thanks for the contribution!