Fix: let Revise.jl parse functions and docstrings correctly

[borisdevos]

Revise.jl doesn't handle the tuple of functions with different arguments very well. I won't pretend to understand Revise internals well, but here what my robot friend told me:
"When Revise re-parses the file, it tries to evaluate that comma-tuple of signatures as a standalone expression to figure out what it documents — but a bare tuple of bodiless, where-qualified call signatures isn't valid to evaluate on its own, so it throws invalid "::" syntax and Revise gives up on the whole file (and stalls the REPL while doing so)."

This is solved by just splitting them in separate @doc blocks. Every block has 1 function with some arguments, which Revise can revise. The before and after behavior can be tested with Revise.revise(throw=true).

For obvious reasons, I want Revise to keep on revising when I'm busy in the internals. If I get a dime for every time I had to restart my REPL because of this, I'd have at least a dollar.

How the error looks like for the curious:

┌ Error: Failed to revise ...\TensorKit.jl\src\tensors\abstracttensor.jl
│   exception =
│    lowering returned an exception:
│    $(Expr(:error, "invalid \"::\" syntax"))
└ @ Revise ...\.julia\packages\Revise\yd3HH\src\packagedef.jl:1491

[lkdvos]

Thanks for this, this had also bothered me quite a bit but never quite enough to actually try looking for a solution 😆. Am I understanding this right that you are now duplicating docstrings? I think there is some way of doing this without needing to copy the text, don't quote me on the exact syntax but @doc can be used both to document and retrieve docstrings, so something like @doc (@doc method1(...)) method2(...) could also do the trick

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/tensors/abstracttensor.jl	54.85% <ø> (+17.16%)	⬆️

... and 55 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[borisdevos]

Docstrings were actually already duplicated, but now the signatures are split up, so it's somehow less duplicated 🫠 I'll look into your suggestion
Edit: I think I misunderstood what you meant, I thought you were referring to docstrings duplicating when calling ?help, but maybe you just meant code-wise?