James Fowler wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
... We don't want to rebuild quickbook
each time you need a new collector behavior, so I think binding to an
interpreted language (Python, please) is almost mandatory. You could
do it with plug-in dynamic libraries, I suppose, but this is a job I
just see no good reason to do in C++.
I was under the impression that there was a strong bias towards avoiding
dependencies on other languages within the Boost "tools", although I
don't exactly recall where that impression came from. While I'm quite
impressed with the improvements in text processing with C++ provided by
various cool Boost libraries (like regex and Spirit), I agree 100% that
C++ isn't really the best tool for this particular job (if that's a
valid paraphrase of what you're saying). I've been doing stuff like
this (documentation, build & test harnesses, etc) in Perl for ages.
Hadn't worked with Python until late last year, but I've been really
impressed so far (especially when coupled with the Boost Python
library), and Python seems to have much of Perl's flexibility without
the, er, enigmatic tendencies of Perl code.
Is using Python, at least within the Boost Documentation project, a
viable option? IMHO that could make certain tasks much easier. Having
Python embedded in QuickBook could be very interesting. For that
matter, Python embedded in GCC
(http://www.openseaconsulting.com/recpp/index.html) could have some
interesting implications for coming up with a "better way" to extract
documentation from source, given some of the recent grumbling about
doxygen. Personally I think doxygen is a reasonably practical and
useful tool, but I agree that it leaves something to be desired. It's
just about useless when you start pushing the Boost preprocessor
library, and wrestling with the doxygen to BoostBook xslt stuff is about
as much fun as chewing broken glass. What would it take to adopt
Python as an accepted part of the expected toolset for Boost
Documentation projects?
I have no problems with using Python at all. I like Python and
it seems to be the defacto scripting language for Boost. I'd
gladly use Python without hesitation if it is the right tool
for the job. That is what I am trying to figure out now. My
only concern is that I want to make QuickBook "As simple as
possible, but not simpler". If it is possible to reuse tools
that are already deployed like BJam, to get the same effect,
then so much the better.
Cheers,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net
-------------------------------------------------------
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
