Re: A downside of qbk

on Sun Nov 06 2011, Joel de Guzman <joel-AT-boost-consulting.com> wrote:

> 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).

Yeah, sort of.

http://michelf.com/projects/php-markdown/extra/#table

maybe there are too many flavors of Markdown; I don't know.  Maybe ReST
would be a better choice.

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