Re: A downside of qbk
Dave Abrahams <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com