But then, this gets me thinking, why don't h1 through h6
automatically translate to the-current-section-level plus 1-to-6?
Then the new [h Heading] would be a shorthand for [h1 Heading]. Is
there a reason why one would ever want to hardcode hN in the docs?
Good idea! Make it relative, instead of absolute. I have one reason
against it however: backward compatibility. I do have some docs with
hard coded hNs. Those were the ones that were quick-ported from the
good old days of QuickDoc. Well, we have version checking anyway,
so we can apply it only to 1.3 and above. And it's always easy to
grep those hNs.
There's another (minor) reason against it: syntax. The original
syntax was taken from HTML, which behavior is absolute; not
relative. Might there be some confusion? No?
I have lots of hard coded header levels as well: which I use when I don't
want to start a new section.
How about [h+2 ...] fairly obvious then that it's relative, and it's
backwards compatible too?
John.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
