Description of @abstract is easy to misunderstand

[verity147]

Your Godot version:
4.5.1
Issue description:
In the description of the @abstract annotation it says:

If a class has at least one abstract method (either its own or an unimplemented inherited one), then it must also be marked as abstract. However, the reverse is not true: an abstract class is allowed to have no abstract methods.

I think it should say "non abstract methods" instead, from context the sentence as it is right now makes no sense. I'm not a native speaker but I'm pretty sure the meaning is meant to be that an abstract class is allowed to have functions that are not abstract but the missing n reverses that meaning.

URL to the documentation page:
https://docs.godotengine.org/en/4.5/classes/class_@gdscript.html#class-gdscript-annotation-abstract

If you know how to fix the issue you are reporting please
consider opening a pull request. We provide a tutorial on
using git here: https://contributing.godotengine.org/en/latest/organization/pull_requests/creating_pull_requests.html,
writing documentation at https://contributing.godotengine.org/en/latest/documentation/guidelines/index.html
and contributing to the class reference here: https://contributing.godotengine.org/en/latest/documentation/class_reference.html

[AThousandShips]

The description is correct, an @abstract class doesn't have to have any @abstract methods, the sentence means "An abstract class doesn't have to have abstract methods", but it can be reworded to make that clearer though

[verity147]

Okay, now I get how it's meant to be read, but that did really catch me off guard. I would suggest the following if that's okay:

If a class has at least one abstract method (either its own or an unimplemented inherited one), then it must also be marked as abstract. However, the opposite is not true: the methods in an abstract class do not necessarily have to be abstract themselves.

If I might add, i think another sentence on the purpose of abstract and non-abstract methods in an abstract class might be helpful.

I'll also edit the title of thie issue to reflect the problem better.

[AThousandShips]

I think the suggested change is a bit excessive, I think:

If a class has at least one abstract method (either its own or an unimplemented inherited one), then it must also be marked as abstract. However, the reverse is not true: an abstract class doesn't have to have any abstract methods.

Is more than enough to clarify the concept

[Mickeon]

See also my suggestions in the original PR, which haven't quite been integrated. One part of it involves changing the whole description as follows:

An abstract class is a class that cannot be instantiated directly. Instead, it is meant to be inherited by other scripts. Attempting to instantiate an abstract class will result in an error.
An abstract method must have no implementation, and a newline or semicolon after the method's declaration. When defining or inheriting a class, its abstract methods must be overridden and compatibile. If this isn't done, the class must be marked as abstract.
[b]Note:[/b] An abstract class may have no abstract methods.