Re: A downside of qbk

Mateusz Łoskot <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation
Message-ID <CABUeae-ykxfBoT1qch6C3xhu-WN+wDPYqGk4sXM73hi8M0ObpA@mail.gmail.com>
On 6 November 2011 20:07, Bo Jensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Dave Abrahams <[email protected]> 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?
>
> Have no idea if that's possible, but damn it would be nice !

That would be great!

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Member of ACCU, http://accu.org
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-docs
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.