merging replies to a few different messages here...
Thomas Guest wrote:
Joel de Guzman <joel <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:Yes, "wait and see" sounds good. I prefer the current approach (not putting leading spaces in "elements"), it just seems cleaner. With the mod to switch spaces to in place, that seems to take care of the problem for me. Unless something else comes up that makes it break, I think we've got it resolved.
Nice to hear. I don't quite recall now why I ended up addingI'm not quite sure what to do here. As you have noticed the original
The only thing I remember is that in some cases, a
" " is ignored by XML.
syntax_highlight grammar included leading spaces with most "elements". My
current scheme doesn't. I can easily make it behave like it used to, but it would become a little trickier to document. Perhaps we should wait and see?
I guess I was waiting for the dust to settle, the various proposals to beThanks for the suggestion, but I'd much rather see you continue taking the lead on the dynamic highlighting! You've done great so far, and you've put some serious work into it. The only thing I've added to the dynamic highlighting system is the space/nbsp;/newline patch. Other than that, I simply merged your code in with the other varied bits I've added, which was pretty easy since you did a great job keeping the bulk of the implementation in new source files.
accepted etc. I think James is now in charge of this proposal, so I'll take a
look at his revision and submit documentation for this.
Sounds like we still need to sort out how to inline the highlight schemes. I'll
have a think about this. My time is getting more limited though, and I need to
go back and read up on Boost build, tools etc.
See my previous response to Joel. This might not be hard to do.
Good to hear. (Phew!). Have you tried adding a user defined scheme?Not yet. I'm trying to maintain the illusion that I can justify all this time related to short term needs for documentation I'm writing ;). I've got to draw the line somewhere... I might end up needing this for my current project docs, but I'm hoping someone else will have checked this out by then.
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Thomas Guest wrote:
One more point. It would be a lot easier to distribute and merge these
modifications if we had CVS commit privileges. This work could be done on a
branch or in a scratch area until complete.
I don't know the process on how to request for write access to the boost CVS. Doug is a Boost moderator. Doug?
Anyway, we can always use the boost-sandbox, or if you want, I can give you guys access to the Spirit CVS. Tell me which you prefer.
Personally, I would prefer subversion instead of CVS, but either system (CVS or subversion) would be an improvement over tossing zip files around :) I might be able to get this up on a publicly accessible subversion server. I'd rather have someone else deal with this, but unless there is a strong consensus on sticking with CVS I'd be willing to try if that gets this into subversion.
- james
-- __________________________________________________________ James Fowler, Open Sea Consulting http://www.OpenSeaConsulting.com, Marietta, Georgia, USA Do C++ Right. http://www.OpenCpp.org, opening soon!
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
