Re: [quickbook] Direct code import...

After having my Mac's drive get trashed I lost a set of notes I had on what
needed to get finished for this. Does anyone have an idea on what needs to
get done to complete this feature on boostbook-dev branch?


On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Daniel James <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 30 October 2011 04:14, Rene Rivera <[email protected]> wrote:
> > First, I need to say I'm not forcing this on anyone.
>
> As far as I can tell, no one agrees with me on this. So it'll probably go
> in.
>
> > Well, there's at least one problem with using "include".. It would mean
> > duplicating the file parsing that "import" already does. And if we
> > restructure so that the grammar can be used, it would then complicate the
> > "import" also since it has to now also ignore the escape comment parts
> that
> > "include" is using. Which I guess means that both the file inclusion and
> > file import should be combined into a comprehensive file reading and
> parsing
> > mechanic. And then based on the template name doing the parsing we
> either do
> > import like things, or we do include like things.
>
> It was easier to just port your implementation than to answer this:
>
> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/75175/
>
> I'm not entirely happy with that as it means that different blocks of
> escaped quickbook are processed in different scopes, so a template
> defined in one won't be available in the next.
>
> >> I'd rather use explicit syntax to distinguish between paths and
> >> patterns. This change breaks the windows path support, which I think
> >
> > Technically it doesn't break it. As long as you don't use a regex for the
> > file it behaves as before.
>
> I should have explained that your change thinks a windows path is a
> regex, as '\' is used for file separators.
>
> > OK. But would a more general concept of typed value
> quoting/escaping/parsing
> > be better?
>
> I wouldn't want to complicate the normal inclusion syntax for this
> purpose, which almost always works fine for file names (using things
> like square brackets isn't really portable).
>
> >> I'd also use a version switch as well. I think things like this should
> >> be approached with some caution.
> >
> > How would a version switch actually work here. I can only see it working
> > with linear development. What I have is a branch.
>
> The idea is that when integrated into trunk, the changes won't effect
> files that were written for an older version of quickbook. It also
> means language changes can be checked into trunk, without committing
> to them. So I implement quickbook in a single branch, but can have
> features that can be changed in the future.
>
> >> I haven't tested it, but I don't think your code will work on windows.
> >> For example, the line:
> >>
> >>     std::string f = i->path().filename().native();
> >>
> >> should probably be something like:
> >>
> >>     std::string f = detail::path_to_generic(i->path().filename());
> >
> > That would be true if 'f' was a full path. But it's only the file name
> part
> > which can't have the characters that path_to_generic manipulates.
> > Additionally this code is never executed in a backward compatibility
> context
> > since it's only when one specifies a regex as the argument to the import.
>
> This doesn't work because on windows files are encoded in UTF-16, so
> 'native' returns a wide string. 'native_string' would return the
> correct string type, but wouldn't convert it correctly to UTF-8.
> Filesystem can convert paths correctly using locales, but I wasn't
> able to get that right. Boost.Locale might help here but I implemented
> this before it was accepted, and I'd rather wait until it's known to
> be stable before adapting it.
>
> Also, I'm thinking of using urls for paths in the future, and I think
> url syntax is slightly different to filesystem's generic path syntax,
> so path_to_generic might do something extra. It'd be useful if paths
> were always converted with it, even if it seems unnecessary, so that
> when making changes I can be sure that's the case.
>
> >> If there are matches at different points in the search path, they're
> >> ordered by absolute path which may vary on different computers. I
> >> think my preference would be to keep them in the order they appear in
> >> the search path, with 'filename_relative' as a secondary sort field in
> >> case of collisions. Or perhaps 'filename_relative' could be the
> >> primary sort field, and the include path order the secondary sort
> >> field.
> >
> > Good point. Although the ordering within different search paths is
> likely to
> > never come up. As it's more likely that if one is concerned about some
> > specific ordering one would put the imports/inclusions in a specific
> order..
> > As I did in my use case.
>
> I really want quickbook to always produce exactly the same
> documentation for the same source, or as close as realistically
> possible. The helps reduce changeset when people are checking
> generated documentation into subversion, and makes it easier to
> compare documentation generated at different times.
>
> > But your idea is contradictory to your previous point about using
> "include"
> > instead of "import". The above would be, according to your definition of
> the
> > semantics, a combined import and include. Which is what I implemented. So
> > perhaps we want to reconsider the semantics (and names) of "include" and
> > "import".
>
> No, the code snippets are only in scope within the included file. This
> is the same as including a quickbook file (for 1.6). Although being
> able to use a snippet from later in the file is different to using
> templates.
>
> I'll try to explain the motivation behind this. Currently when you
> include a file, macros are scoped but templates aren't (there was a
> 'fixme' comment in the source saying that templates should be scoped).
> To fix that there needs to be a mechanism for importing templates from
> a file, my original thought was to adapt 'include' but then I realised
> that the semantics matched the existing use of 'import' quite closely.
> Hopefully it'll also be more intuitive, as 'include' is similar to a
> C++ include, 'import' is similar to a python import.
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-docs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-docs
>



-- 
-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo

_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-docs