Re: [Boost-docs] [quickbook] Processing names with more than one underscore ( _ )

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] [quickbook] Processing names with more than one underscore ( _ )
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-24 10:09:45

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-docs-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-docs-
> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Joel de Guzman
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 2:32 AM
> To: boost-docs_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] [quickbook] Processing names with more than one
> underscore ( _ )
> 
> On 2/18/2011 4:18 AM, Daniel James wrote:
> > On 17 February 2011 18:38, Paul A. Bristow<pbristow_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'd definitely support a switch for disabling it.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> And I'd also like to be able to disable the 'indent-means-a-code-box'
> >> feature.
> >
> > Sigh, there must be a serious communication failure on my part as I
> > think people are misunderstanding me. What I'm opposed to is adding
> > new switches that cause the number of dialects to rise exponentially.
> > No one has really addressed this point.
> 
> As Eric noted, it shouldn't be a new dialect, but instead a strict subset
of the
> original. Consider a switch such as, say, "strict-syntax"
> which disables some of the quirky features. Such a strict-syntax can not
have any
> new features and can only disable some of the old.

Absolutely agree with this.  No misunderstanding. 

But, unless I misunderstand (I fear I do, but fear I am not alone), 

"Preformatted code starts with a space or a tab. The code will be syntax
highlighted according to the current Source Mode:"

Using whitespace as a markup seems a bit odd to me - now that I have used it
(and fallen foul of it too).

Quickbook feels like a markup language, so why shouldn't one have to markup
C++ blocks as such?

But Quickbook also provides the same effect by using double ticks?  Explicit
markup?

"We provide a phrase level markup that is a mix between the two. By using
the double-tick, instead of the single-tick, we are telling QuickBook to use
preformatted blocks of code."

and

"inside code, code blocks and inline code, QuickBook does not allow any
markup to avoid conflicts with the target syntax (e.g. c++). In case you
need to switch back to QuickBook markup inside code, you can do so using a
language specific escape-back delimiter."

So this looks as though a leading (white)space implies a start ``, and this
is just a 'premature' end ``, possibly followed by another start ``.  Or do
I misunderstand?

I *think* I'd prefer to avoid using the "Preformatted code starts with a
space or a tab" feature and instead *always* use `` code stuff ... ``

and I *think* I'd like the 'strict syntax ' to enforce that.

But perhaps I am confused, misguided ...

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]