Boost Docs :
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-28 10:39:52
Paul A Bristow wrote:
> | -----Original Message----- | From:
> boost-docs-bounces_at_[hidden] |
> [mailto:boost-docs-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf | Of
> Joel de Guzman | Sent: 28 November 2006 11:17 | To:
> boost-docs_at_[hidden] | Subject: Re: [Boost-docs]
> Invisible comments? | | Paul A Bristow wrote: | > I can't see why
> Quickbook comments are wanted in the XML. | > | | We need it in
> order to do some more post processing of the XML. | At least that's
> how I understand Dave's need for it.
Paul, any chance we can get you to use the common ">" for quoting? Using
the "|" tends to cause thing like the above when replying :-(
> It would be helpful to have the licence info replicated of course and
> the licence as comment mechanism does now does that - or does it?
> Or is there something more complicated here?
Interesting that is the exact behavior I *don't* want, and what caused
me to pose the question in the first place. The use case I have is in
writing a utility qbk file which has a some templates in it. So lets say
I have an ext.qbk file, and following the Boost copyright+license rules
I put a copyright+license comment in it. Now I have a mydoc.qbk which
has the usual quickbook copyright and legal text in it. It includes the
ext.qbk to get the common templates. When generated the mydoc.xml will
end up with *two* possibly different license statements, and extra and
likely infringing copyright statement.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo