Program option rendering / consistency issue

[dumbscholar]

In the Program options page,

Under --OB-mass-loss and --OB-mass-loss-prescription, the default value is not specified in a new line although it was indended to be so.

Under --mass-loss-prescription, NONE is specified after ZERO. Elsewhere, the order is the opposite.

Under --critical-mass-ratio-prescription, option ZERO is not described. Is NONE going to be deprecated and replaced by ZERO?

[jeffriley]

Under --OB-mass-loss and --OB-mass-loss-prescription, the default value is not specified in a new line although
it was indended to be so.

Will fix next time a PR is pushed.

Under --mass-loss-prescription, NONE is specified after ZERO. Elsewhere, the order is the opposite.

NONE is deprecated and will be removed (including from the documentation) at the end of the year anyway.

Under --critical-mass-ratio-prescription, option ZERO is not described. Is NONE going to be deprecated and replaced
by ZERO?

No. In this case, NONE means no prescription specified, so the default will be used. ZERO is not an option here, and should not appear in the documentation - will fix next time a PR is pushed.

[dumbscholar]

Thanks for addressing the issues.

I think --pulsational-pair-instability-prescription is applicable only when --pulsational-pair-instability is TRUE. This is not specified in the program options. Furthermore, --pulsational-pair-instability is related to mass loss, so should it not be grouped under "Stellar evolution and winds" in the program options and under "Stellar properties" in the yaml file together with --pulsational-pair-instability-prescription in both places?

In the description of --mass-transfer-fa, it can be mentioned that it's referring to the popular beta parameter.

Also, the choice 'COMPAS' can be renamed to 'WOOSLEY' as there is no program option which mentions its default choice as 'COMPAS'. So the naming in this case is inconsistent with rest of the document.

[ilyamandel]

Added comment on pulsational-pair-instability-prescription being relevant only when pulsational-pair-instability is used.
I think it's fine to keep this in the same place as pair instability supernovae.
Added comment on -mass-transfer-fa describing beta.

The only one I haven't done but I agree should probably be done is to change the name of the "COMPAS" PPISN prescription to WOOSLEY. @SimonStevenson , are you OK with that?