Re: [Boost-docs] The beauty of LATEX

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] The beauty of LATEX
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-30 15:54:01

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-docs-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-docs-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of
> Matias Capeletto
> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:05 PM
> To: Discussion of Boost Documentation
> Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] The beauty of LATEX
> 
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > 3. Backends:
> >
> >  a. The template engine is work in progress. The final design
> >     should be powerful enough for tree transformations like the
> >     ones Daniel concocted.
> >  b. The template engine transforms the IR into the final form
> >     (e.g. LaTeX, Docbook, HTML etc.).
> 
> Can you explain a little bit more how the template engine works to finally transform the IR?
> Using your example...
> 
> > We should be working on a full schema and I propose a minimal DocBook
> > style scheme using simple Qbk/Gaea syntax. Example:
> >
> > [book title
> >  [chapter ch1
> >    [section sect1
> >      [para ... ]
> >      [para ... ]
> >      [para ... ]
> >    ]
> >  ]
> > ]
> 
> I thought that the [para ...] template will get evaluated before the [section ...] one. This will
generate
> something like "<para>...</para>" in the case of the Docbook back-end and that is what the
[section ...]
> template will get as an input. Is that right?
> >From your comments about footnotes processing for HTML it seems that
> the [footnote ...] template generates the reference inplace and also returns the actual text for
the
> footnote wrapped in a certain way so it survive the [para ...] evaluation and is then available in
the
> [section ...] template or even in the [chapter ...] one for them to arrange where they will
finally end up.
> Could you elaborate on how the evaluation steps will actually take place?
> 
> > (aside I'm not sure if we should do it the old way using section/
> > endsect, or a real block structure like this. There are tradeoffs, but
> > I do not want to digress. I'm sure you know what the tradeoffs are).
> 
> If you want to follow the design you sketched, I think this is a good change and we should move
away
> from [section] and [endsect].

Two comments.

1  The main author error is, and will always be,  mis-matching or missing brackets.  Indenting helps
make the structure clear, and also an editor that 'understands' the structure an lays it out
suitably or colors it?

But so does a more explicit structure like
[section:mysection  My Section]
...
[endsection:mysection]

2  If indexing is accepted as important, how is the index system to get the user to the section (as
at present using HTML), or paragraph or?
  I'm not sure about how it all will work, but some thought now might make it easy, as opposed to
impossible.

Paul

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