Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] A downside of qbk
From: Stuart Dootson (stuart.dootson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-08 08:59:43
On 8 November 2011 04:04, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
> >>> https://github.com/boost-lib/parameter/blob/master/doc/index.rst
> >>> https://github.com/boost-lib/spirit/blob/master/doc/introduction.qbk
> >>> 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
Might be worth having a look at MultiMarkdown (
http://fletcherpenney.net/multimarkdown/) - it seems to be gaining traction
as 'the' extended Markdown, with quite a few features (including tables)
over and above standard Markdown... It also has support for combining
multiple MMD files (using an index file) to produce a single resultant
document, which may be of use...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:41 UTC