Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] A downside of qbk
From: Mateusz Åoskot (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<dave-AT-boostpro.com> Â 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?
>> 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. Â 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:
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:41 UTC