Re: A downside of qbk
Dave Abrahams <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
on Sun Nov 06 2011, Mateusz Łoskot <mateusz-AT-loskot.net> wrote: > 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! Who among us would be willing to make the case to them? I don't think I'm the one to do it. 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 framework. Obviously GitHub isn't the only place in the world that matters, but getting adoption there would probably go a long way to getting adoption everywhere. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-docs