Re: [Boost-docs] Invisible comments?

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