remove declarations of undefined static member functions

[dhebbeker]

We used to do this in xpcc in order to document the interface (like concepts). This was never enforced by the compiler afaik. You can probably get rid of this if you want to.

Originally posted by @ekiwi in #341 (comment)

I suggest to remove the declarations of static member functions, which are never defined, for the following reasons:

• remove redundant declarations and documentation which may eventually diverge
• remove the potential impression (for new users like me) that there may be a generic / basic implementation which may be called using the base class

[rleh]

The idea of the classes defined in architecture is to define an interface which then has to be implemented for every platform. E.g. in java the classes in architecture would be interfaces, but C++ until 17 has no such feature.
I believe the usage of C++ concepts would fix all the issues. Be concept are a C++20 feature and we will have to wait at least until GCC 10 is released for ARM targets to switch to C++20.

[rleh]

remove the potential impression (for new users like me) that there may be a generic / basic implementation which may be called using the base class

Good point!
I guess we should not include all the :architecture:* modules in the documentation generator. Then only those architecture modules for which there are actual implementations should be included, since these are included by the platform modules as dependencies.
I will check this...

[rleh]

Seems to work: 8c09487

[dhebbeker]

Thank you @rleh for taking care of the documentation.

My ultimate concern is a about the function declarations in the source code. I will leave this issue open for discussion and decision on (and potentially implementation of) the suggested actions.

[rleh]

I consider the problem solved by 8194b88 (#354).