Fix/docs2

[SteveBronder]

Summary

I'm breaking up #2687 into several smaller pieces as the other PR was error'ing out in some odd places and that large of a PR is hard to debug. I think I'm going to do it like

• Fix up documentation website
• Fix up docs for meta functions like value_type_t etc.
• Several small Prs to remove errors from argument 'x' from the argument list of <FUNCTION> has multiple @param documentation sections

Tests

Only doc changes so no new tests

Side Effects

Nope

Release notes

Update math library documentation

Checklist

• Math issue #(issue number)

• Copyright holder: Steve Bronder

  The copyright holder is typically you or your assignee, such as a university or company. By submitting this pull request, the copyright holder is agreeing to the license the submitted work under the following licenses:
  - Code: BSD 3-clause (https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause)
  - Documentation: CC-BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

• the basic tests are passing

  • unit tests pass (to run, use: ./runTests.py test/unit)
  • header checks pass, (make test-headers)
  • dependencies checks pass, (make test-math-dependencies)
  • docs build, (make doxygen)
  • code passes the built in C++ standards checks (make cpplint)

• the code is written in idiomatic C++ and changes are documented in the doxygen

• the new changes are tested

[bob-carpenter]

Thanks so much for finishing the revised PR.

I'm not going to review, because I don't understand the new math lib's C++ well enough. Ideally, someone would have the time to follow along and see if the instructions work. Barring that, I'd suggest someone who understands the C++ already. Perhaps @rok-cesnovar or @wds15 or @andrjohns?

[SteveBronder]

That's reasonable. If any of the three of yinz also have contributions that you think would help out the docs absolutely feel free to add to the branch!

[rok-cesnovar]

Will review it this weekend! Thanks Steve!

[rok-cesnovar]

Looks great to me. Some grammar/typo comments, but all are rather small. No objections in terms of content/organization.

[WardBrian]

Are there any objections to committing @rok-cesnovar's grammar suggestions and then merging this? I've had a few people recently ask me about getting started docs here

[bob-carpenter]

Are there any objections to committing @rok-cesnovar's grammar suggestions and then merging this?

Yes, I think it's better than what we have now and I don't think @SteveBronder has much time to revise.

I gave Steve a pile of feedback on the text---I just didn't want to be a final reviewer because I don't understand the C++ well enough and don't have time to verify it all.

[SteveBronder]

Hey srry! Been busy ill look at this tmrw and make the changes

[WardBrian]

No worries Steve! I wasn't asking to try to rush you, but more ask if you wanted someone else (e.g. me) to go through Rok's suggestions and then merge this

[WardBrian]

I just went through all of @rok-cesnovar's grammar and spelling line edits, so assuming he is okay with the content of this I believe we should merge after CI