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

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] [quickbook] Processing names with more than oneunderscore ( _ )
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-25 03:34:38

On 2/24/2011 9:46 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> On 2/24/2011 11:33 PM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>>> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of John Maddock
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Which just goes to show there's no accounting for taste - I love the
>> "indented
>>> text is code" feature, and I've never fallen foul of it (yet!).
>>>
>>> I find it easy to read when looking at quickbook source too... but
>>> perhaps
>> I'm
>>> just used to it...
>>
>> Chacun a son gout ;-)
>>
>> Maybe I'm weird, so I'll pipe down.
>
> Well, I happen to share John's sentiment.

I do too because starting a line with a space or tab does not affect 
anything else one does, plus it is totally normal to begin a new line 
with text, and not a space or tab, no matter how one writes the 
quickbook topics. Unless one
   quite naturally enjoys
  beginning lines with spaces or tabs,
     which I find really weird, then
it seems to me as if the quickbook code indenting feature is fine.

OTOH having names with more than one underscore, which was the original 
issue of my OP, is perfectly normal given Boost's rules for the use of 
C++ identifiers, and the broken quickbook processing that does NOT 
handle names with more than one underscore properly ( the "Simple 
formatting" for underline is supposed to kick in only if the name begins 
and ends in an underscore, but actually kicks in whenever there are two 
or more underscores in any name no matter where they are in the 
identifier ) makes things even worse. So why can't we either correct the 
"Simple formatting" bug or, if that is currently too difficult to do 
because of parsing issues, allow an option that will eliminate "Simple 
formatting" completely since it is totally redundant anyway and the 
alternative to "Simple formatting" is totally in the spirit of quickbook 
markup.

I am very appreciative of the work Joel de Guzman, Eric Niebler, and 
Daniel James have done with quickbook, so please do not interpret my OP 
and this remark as a knock on any programmer. Thank goodness we have 
quickbook and don't have to deal directly with docbook itself.