Loren Segal

FWIW, this is easily solved with `--default-return ::Object` in your `.yardopts` file. I think for YARD to implement this out of the box it would require some slightly nicer formatting...

This could be accepted as a pull request if you wanted to take it on, otherwise it's probably unlikely to be added given that you can work around this limitation...

I would recommend building a plugin to do this via [template customization](https://gnuu.org/2009/11/18/customizing-yard-templates/) ([template architecture docs](https://rubydoc.info/gems/yard/file/docs/Templates.md)) as a first step. The plugin could initially just be included into projects on a...

Can you list a test case that illustrates the issue with expected/actual results?

There shouldn't be a distinction, but it depends on the `` as to whether YARD will use one, both, or neither of the branches: code: https://github.com/lsegal/yard/blob/master/lib/yard/handlers/ruby/class_condition_handler.rb test example file: https://github.com/lsegal/yard/blob/master/spec/handlers/examples/class_condition_handler_001.rb.txt...

YARD has always (read: for a _very long time_) parsed files in ascending file-length order by default. In addition, YARD always takes the _last defined_ docstring of a parsed object....

> shouldn't be changed due to backward compatibility This one most importantly. Changing the behavior would change a ton of living documentation in which users were making use of this...

Comments are not supported in .yardopts files. This would be an added feature that could be introduced as a PR, but is fairly low priority for this project given that...

> I don't want it to be a version of my repo. ... Basically it is usually that I want some options off whilst authoring and testing extra pages. It...

IMO the _current_ AST implementation correctly represents the code structure and the proposed patch would actually change the way that commentless blocks are presented. This is something that could probably...