David Abrahams wrote: >> Sections: I'm perfectly happy with quickbook here, although our chunking >> needs tweeking a bit. > > I *really* like ReST section titles. Seeing > > [h1 The Way It Is] > > is nowhere near as meaningful as plaintext as > > =============== > The Way It Is > ===============
The recommended Qbk markup is: [section The Way It Is] As to which is better, I don't know. Is it the ====== that's appealing? One problem I have with ReST is that the syntax is ad hoc. For example, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to formalize its table syntax in spirit-style EBNF. One big advantage of a formal syntax is that we are able to analyze the syntax in a high level. With that ability, we can simplify, extend, reform, the grammar at will and with ease without affecting the semantics. The simpler the grammar, the better. We've seen in recent discussions how QuickBook's simple grammar can be generalized into a set of simple rules that can be realized as a template library, thus providing user extensibility without coding. The ability to rewrite QuickBook in QuickBook is so enticing. To me, that far outweighs morphing the syntax into something like ReST's "easy-to-read, what-you-see-is-what-you- get plaintext markup". Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
