Significant docs extension and restructuring

[bwohlberg]

Add content that was removed from JOSS paper and restructure TOC for more rational ordering.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #332 (a5cc09c) into main (98d3df7) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #332   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.93%   93.93%           
=======================================
  Files          58       58           
  Lines        3495     3495           
=======================================
  Hits         3283     3283           
  Misses        212      212           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	93.93% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[bwohlberg]

Base Classes is perhaps not the best title since that section also includes BlockArray, which is not primarily intended as a base for derived classes. Any suggestions for alternatives?

[Michael-T-McCann]

Base Classes is perhaps not the best title since that section also includes BlockArray, which is not primarily intended as a base for derived classes. Any suggestions for alternatives?

I didn't mind "Important Classes." Other options: "Main Classes" "SCICO Classes" "Main SCICO Classes".

[Michael-T-McCann]

Looks like a fine way to incorporate the JOSS material. Consider moving "SCICO Contributors" outside the "User Documentation" section. Could be a part of "Developer Documentation" (a stretch, but no more a stretch than its current location) or a top-level section on its own. Or a subsection at the bottom of "Overview".

[crstngc]

Base Classes is perhaps not the best title since that section also includes BlockArray, which is not primarily intended as a base for derived classes. Any suggestions for alternatives?

I didn't mind "Important Classes." Other options: "Main Classes" "SCICO Classes" "Main SCICO Classes".

I am OK with "Main SCICO Classes" or "Core SCICO Classes".

[crstngc]

This makes a nicer and more comprehensive introduction to SCICO.

A nit-picking: I would prefer for each of the Base (Main) Classes to have their own page as before.

[bwohlberg]

Base Classes is perhaps not the best title since that section also includes BlockArray, which is not primarily intended as a base for derived classes. Any suggestions for alternatives?

I didn't mind "Important Classes." Other options: "Main Classes" "SCICO Classes" "Main SCICO Classes".

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm inclined to go with "Main SCICO Classes".

[bwohlberg]

Looks like a fine way to incorporate the JOSS material. Consider moving "SCICO Contributors" outside the "User Documentation" section. Could be a part of "Developer Documentation" (a stretch, but no more a stretch than its current location) or a top-level section on its own. Or a subsection at the bottom of "Overview".

I agree it doesn't really belong there, but it also doesn't seem to warrant its own top-level section. I'll play around a bit to see what seems to work.

[bwohlberg]

A nit-picking: I would prefer for each of the Base (Main) Classes to have their own page as before.

I do see the benefit of each class having its own page. I made the change primarily because the class index page was really ugly, and inconsistent with the style of the rest of the docs. I'm open to suggestions for how to separate them again in a way that avoid the ugly index page.