Doc/newtcldocformat

[vanosg]

Patch by: Geo

One-line summary: Modernize Tcl command doc/webpage

Additional description (if needed):
This PR modernizes and standardizes doc/sphinx_source/using/tcl-commands.rst to improve readability, consistency, maintainability, and usability of the Tcl command reference.

The update preserves the existing command-signature headings so commands remain easy to find in the table of contents and can still be directly linked. Stable explicit anchors were also added for command and bind entries to make cross-references more durable if command signatures change in the future.

Major changes include:

• Standardized example data throughout the document, including LamestBot, #lamest, Foobar, foobar, irc.example.net, and 127.0.0.1.
• Added or standardized collapsible examples for Tcl commands.
• Added examples for all 57 bind types, including a basic trigger and output demonstration showing the values Eggdrop passes to each proc.
• Standardized command-entry structure and presentation for Description, Returns, Options, See also, and Module fields.
• Added inline code formatting for literal return values, flags, masks, modes, argument values, module names, and other command-facing values.
• Converted legacy grid tables to Sphinx list-table directives to make tables easier to maintain and less prone to formatting errors when content changes.
• Added descriptive headers to all tables and standardized inline-code styling for table values.
• Added stable cross-reference targets and converted applicable “See also” entries into direct Sphinx references.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d24565f2cb

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[michaelortmann]

Instead of 127.0.0.1, can we use 192.0.2.1, as proposed for documentation by RFC https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5737 ?