Does this accept any formatting (links, code blocks, etc.) or is it just raw text?
23 Likes
W update
Are there any changes made to ‘RegisterAutocompleteCallback’?
15 Likes
I feel like introducing something like that would be sort of bad since it’s better and more practical to teach written programming languages rather then visual programming. Along with that, visual programming more then often have limitations compared to written languages and most modern day are typically easy to learn.
Not necessarily a bad suggestion, It’s just not practical.
21 Likes
26 Likes
I just want to say, this is so amazing I don’t have words. You also fixed a long standing bug, that if a module was required in enough locations, it would lose its autocomplete.
The fact that the comments flow through as well to there references is just Chefs kiss. I am Dumb struck right now.
Now if I could just figure out how to get the same benefits with my class implementation.
13 Likes
Please add the ability to add custom autocomplete icons!
Some additional features but not extremely important would be to detect keybinds in a script, make it possible to force update the autocomplete response when not typing and see where the mouse location is.
This would allow me improve my plugin and make it easier to use. 
12 Likes
being able to set a hover text for user variables would be awesome for people releasing scripts publicly. not sure how implementation would work though. imagine hovering over the xPosOffsetB variable and it saying “X position offset of the second model” or smth. small but would be amazing.
12 Likes
THANK GOD.
I couldn’t believe Studio didn’t do this by default. It was the #1 pain I had with intellisense.
The doc comments are a dream too, would love to see the formatting possibilities for these expanded over time.
9 Likes
This is my first time seeing you post here and with your first post you brought something awesome! Keep it up!
8 Likes
Now THIS is epic.
…but now I have to clean up my rambling comments above functions…
I think it would be cool if we could use rich text markup, though that would probably make the comments themselves harder to read 
edit:
it’s fun
17 Likes
24 Likes
Thank you for this!
This is a game changer for documenting our own work! (either for ourselves and for other people to use)
I agree with others regarding the addition of formatting, it would definitely be helpful!
If we can’t have formatting, it would be helpful to have @param and @return (and perhaps even @deprecated) tags.
It would allow developers to explain each parameter in detail, and explain what the method/function returns, and also if we can have the function crossed when it is marked as @deprecated. All these features stated above would definitely level up documentation on the platform.
Here’s an example (from Java):
43 Likes
With all these tips and reminders, developers will definitly reduce errors and iterations, means faster error detection. It would be interesting to see how much time is saved with updates like these and how many errors are caught earlier.
6 Likes
This has been needed for a looooong time!
Now we don’t have to go into our modules just to remember how to use them.
Can you add link support to these? (at least for links to the DevForum)
8 Likes
Cool stuff, and some cool info here: you can use <code> & </code> in your comments. Can’t find anything else, but it makes it read a little nicer.
With this, are we hoping to see something akin to JSDoc in the future? Such as variable descriptions, author tags and whatnot?
19 Likes
Open Documentation button is very useful, saves some time when needing to look up functions information.
7 Likes
User-defined comments are displayed as raw text for now (with some small support for formatting tags). We may support special annotations in the future! LuaDoc-like annotations have been discussed internally in the past.
15 Likes
The community generally uses Moonwave for annotations, so it might be good to support that over LuaDoc. It’s a bit more work but it would integrate with what people are already using more.
19 Likes
You gotta use a hacky work-around for this unfortunately.
type foo = {
Function: typeof(--[[documentation goes here]]
function() end)
}
this works but yeah this is really messy :
hopefully documenting types will be a thing in the future. I want to do either
--makes it string
type foo = (number) -> (string)
or
type foo = {
--documenting like this
bar: () -> () --... or like this?
}
17 Likes
This still needs some work. It seems to me that user-defined function types are not supported, and as mentioned in the post above, there is only a hacky way of doing it.
5 Likes