Re: A downside of qbk
Joel de Guzman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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). Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://boost-spirit.com