Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] A downside of qbk
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-08 04:24:10
On 11/7/2011 10:04 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Nov 06 2011, Rene Rivera<grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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"
> Actually no, it is. It's only GH-flavored markdown in tickets and wikis
> and such.
Hm.. I have to say that's not actually clear from their docs then.
But from the docs Mateusz pointed to it actually sounds easy enough to
write a basic Quickbook to HTML generator in Python.
-- -- 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