Re: A downside of qbk

on Sun Nov 06 2011, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> 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? 

Actually no, it is.  It's only GH-flavored markdown in tickets and wikis
and such.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com