Re: A downside of qbk
Mateusz Łoskot <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABUeae9qcohh2xCyzFtPaeRZ=cPvctrHo9gL_gxKacmrg7ORMg@mail.gmail.com> |
On 7 November 2011 01:33, Rene Rivera <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/6/2011 3:21 PM, 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. > > You do realize that the Markdown that Github uses it not "real" markdown? Yes, it's called GitHub Flavored Markdown http://github.github.com/github-flavored-markdown/ GitHub supports so called userscripts, but AFAIU it is client-side feature: http://help.github.com/userscripts-and-bookmarklets/ Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-docs