Subject: Re: [boost] [quickbook] diagnosing a missing [endsect]?
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-22 10:35:15
On 22 March 2017 at 03:00, Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I'm more interested in our original topic, that is, there to be a way to
> validate a .qbk file such that (a) the warning for a missing [endsect] to be
> an error (and the same applies to other similar warnings, if there are any)
I'm working on it:
> and (b) unmatched [section]/[endsect] in an included .qbk to also be treated
> the same way if the .qbk marked as self-contained in some unspecified way
> (not sure that a docinfo block is the best way to mark for our purposes,
> although I'm not exactly an expert.)
Less of a priority. It's been years since I implemented that warning,
and this is the first time that's come up.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk