On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Eric Noulard <eric.noul...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/1/25 Brad King <brad.k...@kitware.com>: >> I'd rather switch to a real documentation engine like asciidoc than >> implement all those markup capabilities. We'd need one that can handle >> literate programming for .cmake modules though. > > Do you mean that I should drop the current work and go for asciidoc > (and leaving backward compatibility alltogether) or that the current > markup is ok (and could be merged to next) and that we could > go a step further by using asciidoc later or only inside the current > preformatted doc?
The current work is fine for its purpose. I just don't want to implement yet another markup language with all the bells and whistles instead of using an existing one. > Concerning asciidoc, do you want to examine alternative like RST > http://blog.ser1.net/2011/06/restructuredtext-vs-asciidoc.html > > I did gave some example back in october: > http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2011-October/047071.html > > The main trouble with asciidoc or RST is that I didn't find a C/C++ > parser to easily embed in CMake and it doesn't seem that easy to > implement by hand. The solution to that may be to hand the documentation request over to a man page viewer or html viewer. Let's leave this problem for another time/discussion. The markup you're currently proposing has semantics meaningful to CMake in that it identifies the purpose of a block of documentation. Thanks, -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
