Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] A downside of qbk
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-08 04:04:07
on Sun Nov 06 2011, Joel de Guzman <joel-AT-boost-consulting.com> wrote:
> On 11/7/2011 5:21 AM, 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.
> markdown has similarities to qbk syntax. But then we have to
> tweak our qbk source to conform to its syntax. That would be
> tedious unless done automatically. Also, the markdown syntax
> will be a very small subset (e.g. does it even have tables at
> all? http://tinyurl.com/3qvtr).
Yeah, sort of.
maybe there are too many flavors of Markdown; I don't know. Maybe ReST
would be a better choice.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:41 UTC