Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] A downside of qbk
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-07 01:33:34
On 11/6/2011 3:21 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Nov 06 2011, Dave Abrahams<dave-AT-boostpro.com> 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. Any ideas? Does anyone think we can possibly
>> convince GitHub to include a qbk processor?
> Actually, I just had an idea: make sure that qbk is an extension of
> markdown syntax, which IMO is winning the wiki-like syntax wars. Then
> we could get reasonable rendering for many things even where there's no
> qbk support at all.
You do realize that the Markdown that Github uses it not "real"
markdown? And that a qbk document that was a superset of the "real"
Markdown would render incorrectly on Github? (and that's just the
markdown subset I'm talking about)
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:41 UTC