Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] A downside of qbk
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-06 21:15:25
on Sun Nov 06 2011, Mateusz Åoskot <mateusz-AT-loskot.net> wrote:
> On 6 November 2011 20:07, Bo Jensen <jensen.bo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I've been meaning to point out the difference between
>>> As long as qbk is a full-fledged programming language, we may never be
>>> able to expect better. Â Any ideas? Â Does anyone think we can possibly
>>> convince GitHub to include a qbk processor?
>> Have no idea if that's possible, but damn it would be nice !
> That would be great!
Who among us would be willing to make the case to them? I don't think
I'm the one to do it.
Does anyone around here know Ruby? They'd probably only do something
like this if there was a suitable ruby wrapper to fit into their web
Obviously GitHub isn't the only place in the world that matters, but
getting adoption there would probably go a long way to getting adoption
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:41 UTC