Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] A downside of qbk
From: Matias Capeletto (matias.capeletto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-07 13:34:52
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> 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?
>> That would be great!
> 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
You can also use a Python wrapper, like the one is being used to
produce HTML from the rst files.
>From the info page it seems they are receptive to additions:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:41 UTC