Re: [Boost-docs] Quickbook wish list..

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Quickbook wish list..
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-24 19:05:37

On 22 November 2011 16:18, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> * Ability to apply syntax coloring to code blocks one at a time. Right now
> one can globally switch the language system with "[c++]" etc. But what I'd
> rather have is the capability to to a temporary switch (i.e. a push and
> pop). In my case I want to set the global default to "teletype" and then
> choose "c++" for certain places.

That's something I've thought about. The main problem is coming up
with good syntax. I was thinking of something to contain the code, the
problem is that I think it should be clear from the syntax (rather
than the name of an element) what is a code block and what is
quickbook. Maybe:

[c++ ``
    int main() {}
``]

and the phrase version:

[c++ `int main() {}`]

i.e. if a source mode element contains code markup, the source mode
switch is restricted to that code. Or is that horrible?

Another possibility is:

`[c++] int main() {}`

But it's hard to come up with good rules to distinguish a source type
marker from code. I feel that everything within backticks should be
exempt from normal quickbook rules.

> * Ability to use code callouts in regular code blocks instead of just in
> code "import". This seems like just a consistency issue. It seems to me that
> the code markup aspect available to the "import" should be available to code
> blocks also. Although right now callouts are the only feature in this
> context.

It shouldn't be too hard to adapt the code snippet parser to do that.

> * And of course I've already mentioned the file inclusion/extraction from
> code files.

I've sort of implemented that on the dev branch, but only if you use
the 1.6 switch. This should be merged into trunk within the next week.
I think '1.6' is pretty much feature complete from my point of view
(well, there's more to do, but there's always more to do), so I'll be
looking for feedback to try to finalize it.

> * And the related include/import with file globs. (I'm actually working on
> translating the glob implementation from b2/bjam to work in quickbook since
> Daniel prefers globs. And b2 has a really small and standalone
> implementation of globs.)

Will that make it easier to implement dependency checking in boost build?

On the dev branch escaping is now implemented (for 1.6).