Re: [Boost-docs] A downside of qbk

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] A downside of qbk
From: Mateusz Łoskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-07 02:01:40

On 7 November 2011 01:33, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 11/6/2011 3:21 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> on Sun Nov 06 2011, Dave Abrahams<>  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?

Yes, it's called GitHub Flavored Markdown

GitHub supports so called userscripts, but AFAIU it is client-side feature:

Best regards,

Mateusz Loskot,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:41 UTC