Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
On 4/20/17 9:25 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost-users wrote:

> I'm struggling with quickbook
>
> When I use the following
>
> [section:userapi User API]
>
>     [include types/File.qbk]
>     [include types/Hasher.qbk]
>     [include types/Progress.qbk]
>
> [endsect]
>
> I don't the files included.  But when I use
>
> [section:userapi User API]
>
> [include types/File.qbk]
> [include types/Hasher.qbk]
> [include types/Progress.qbk]
>
> [endsect]
>
> The other files ARE included.  I've looked through the quickbook docs
> and for the life of me I can't find where the significance (if there is
> any) of spaces in the markup is explained.  Could someone point me in
> the right direction?
>
> Robert Ramey

Even more confusing:

[section:userapi User API]

[section:type_requirements Type Requirements]

[include types/File.qbk]
[include types/Hasher.qbk]
[include types/Progress.qbk]

[endsect]

doesn't display the types/File.qbk and similar sections at all!

Clearly I'm missing something really dumb.  Any help appreciated.

Robert Ramey


_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
On 4/20/17 9:32 AM, Daniel James via Boost-users wrote:

> On 20 April 2017 at 17:30, Robert Ramey via Boost-users
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Even more confusing:
>>
>> [section:userapi User API]
>>
>> [section:type_requirements Type Requirements]
>>
>> [include types/File.qbk]
>> [include types/Hasher.qbk]
>> [include types/Progress.qbk]
>>
>> [endsect]
>>
>> doesn't display the types/File.qbk and similar sections at all!
>>
>> Clearly I'm missing something really dumb.  Any help appreciated.
>
> I can't tell without looking at the actual source, but you haven't
> closed the first section tag.
>

I truncated it to safe space.  Here is the whole section:

[section:userapi User API]

[section:type_requirements Type Requirements]

[include types/File.qbk]
[include types/Hasher.qbk]
[include types/Progress.qbk]

[endsect]

[section:types Types]
     system error
         make_error_code
     store
         is_open
         open
         close
         insert
         fetch
     posix_file
     win32_file
     native_file
     xxhasher
[endsect]

[section:types Functions]
     functions
         store
             create
                 native_file
                 posix_file
                 win32_file
                 xxhasher
             recover
             rekey
             verify
                 verify_info
             visit
         misc
             block_size
             erase_file
             make_salt

[endsect]

[endsect]

Robert Ramey


_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
On 4/20/17 9:45 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost-users wrote:

 From
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_64_0/doc/html/quickbook/syntax/structure.html#quickbook.syntax.structure.section 
I see:

"Sections can nest, and that results in a hierarchy in the table of
contents."

But it doesn't seem to work for me - I get an error message which
alludes to extra endsect tag.  And it doesn't seem to do the nested
inclusion.  Is it true that sections can actually be nested?

Actually I found that in the regex library sections are nested albeit
there's an intervening include.  Is there any non-obvious information
that I should know about when nesting sections?

>
> Robert Ramey

_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users


On 20/04/2017 19:05, Robert Ramey via Boost-users wrote:

> On 4/20/17 9:45 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost-users wrote:
>
> From
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_64_0/doc/html/quickbook/syntax/structure.html#quickbook.syntax.structure.section 
> I see:
>
> "Sections can nest, and that results in a hierarchy in the table of
> contents."
>
> But it doesn't seem to work for me - I get an error message which
> alludes to extra endsect tag.

That's the error then, you have mismatched sections and endsect's.

> And it doesn't seem to do the nested inclusion.  Is it true that
> sections can actually be nested?

Yes, all my stuff does that.

>
> Actually I found that in the regex library sections are nested albeit
> there's an intervening include.  Is there any non-obvious information
> that I should know about when nesting sections?

Nope, there is almost certainly a.... um.... hard to spot "trivial"
error somewhere.

HTH, John.

>
>>
>> Robert Ramey
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
In reply to this post by Daniel James via Boost-users
On 20 April 2017 at 17:45, Robert Ramey via Boost-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4/20/17 9:32 AM, Daniel James via Boost-users wrote:
>>
>> On 20 April 2017 at 17:30, Robert Ramey via Boost-users
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Even more confusing:
>>>
>>> [section:userapi User API]
>>>
>>> [section:type_requirements Type Requirements]
>>>
>>> [include types/File.qbk]
>>> [include types/Hasher.qbk]
>>> [include types/Progress.qbk]
>>>
>>> [endsect]
>>>
>>> doesn't display the types/File.qbk and similar sections at all!
>>>
>>> Clearly I'm missing something really dumb.  Any help appreciated.
>>
>>
>> I can't tell without looking at the actual source, but you haven't
>> closed the first section tag.
>>
>
> I truncated it to safe space.  Here is the whole section:

I just tried building that, and it worked fine for me. I had to add a
docinto block, but I assume you must have one or it wouldn't build.
There might be a problem with your build files, or the files you're
including, but as they're secret I can't check them.
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
In reply to this post by Daniel James via Boost-users
On 20 April 2017 at 19:05, Robert Ramey via Boost-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> "Sections can nest, and that results in a hierarchy in the table of
> contents."
>
> But it doesn't seem to work for me - I get an error message which alludes to
> extra endsect tag.  And it doesn't seem to do the nested inclusion.  Is it
> true that sections can actually be nested?

Yes.
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
In reply to this post by Daniel James via Boost-users
On 4/20/17 11:24 AM, Daniel James via Boost-users wrote:

> I just tried building that, and it worked fine for me. I had to add a
> docinto block, but I assume you must have one or it wouldn't build.
> There might be a problem with your build files, or the files you're
> including, but as they're secret I can't check them.

I turned out to be a file I was including - damned hard to find though.
Thanks for your patience.

Robert Ramey


_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
In reply to this post by Daniel James via Boost-users


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost-users [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Maddock via Boost-users
> Sent: 20 April 2017 19:22
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: John Maddock
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] really dumb question about quickbook
>
>
>
> On 20/04/2017 19:05, Robert Ramey via Boost-users wrote:
> > On 4/20/17 9:45 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost-users wrote:
> >
> > From
> > http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_64_0/doc/html/quickbook/syntax/structure.html#quickbook.syntax.structure.section
> > I see:
> >
> > "Sections can nest, and that results in a hierarchy in the table of
> > contents."
> >
> > But it doesn't seem to work for me - I get an error message which
> > alludes to extra endsect tag.
>
> That's the error then, you have mismatched sections and endsect's.

Or so it seems?

I'd bet on an errant space *before* a [section...] or [endsect]

(Been there, done that - more than once).

(Even after labelling with a comment after each [endsect[ to help avoid mismatches. (Been there, done that too).

[section:some some_section]

section stuff ...

[endsect]  [/section:some some_section]

HTH

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
+44 (0) 1539 561830








_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
On 21 April 2017 at 10:24, Paul A. Bristow via Boost-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Or so it seems?
>
> I'd bet on an errant space *before* a [section...] or [endsect]
>
> (Been there, done that - more than once).
>
> (Even after labelling with a comment after each [endsect[ to help avoid mismatches. (Been there, done that too).
>
> [section:some some_section]
>
> section stuff ...
>
> [endsect]  [/section:some some_section]

You might have missed it, but I'm working on a 'strict' mode that
increases error checks which might help here. It also wouldn't be too
hard to let you add an id to 'endsect', and check that it matches the
initial 'section', e.g. the would be an error:

    [section:some Something]

    [endsect:something]

Is that a feature you'd want? It would be a backwards compatible
extension, so I could backdate it for older document versions (i.e.
not just [quickbook 1.7]).
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost-users [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Daniel James via Boost-users
> Sent: 21 April 2017 11:22
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Daniel James
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] really dumb question about quickbook
>
> On 21 April 2017 at 10:24, Paul A. Bristow via Boost-users
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Or so it seems?
> >
> > I'd bet on an errant space *before* a [section...] or [endsect]
> >
> > (Been there, done that - more than once).
> >
> > (Even after labelling with a comment after each [endsect[ to help avoid mismatches. (Been there, done that too).
> >
> > [section:some some_section]
> >
> > section stuff ...
> >
> > [endsect]  [/section:some some_section]
>
> You might have missed it, but I'm working on a 'strict' mode that
> increases error checks which might help here. It also wouldn't be too
> hard to let you add an id to 'endsect', and check that it matches the
> initial 'section', e.g. the would be an error:
>
>     [section:some Something]
>
>     [endsect:something]

I think perhaps that I'd prefer to use the id rather than full title:

[endsect:some]

otherwise a longer title like

[section:some Further info on Something Complicated]
...
[endsect: Further info on Something Complicated]  

would be a bit more to type, if more informative?

(IMO the id should have been/should be compulsory).

From an writing point of view, it would be easiest to be able to copy and paste the whole item

[section:some Further info on Something Complicated]

and edit to

[endsect:some Further info on Something Complicated]

Or even easier just prefix with end like this

[endsection:some Further info on Something Complicated]
 
> Is that a feature you'd want? It would be a backwards compatible
> extension, so I could backdate it for older document versions (i.e.
> not just [quickbook 1.7]).

Yes please - that is how it should have been to start with!

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
+44 (0) 1539 561830





_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
On 21 April 2017 at 12:10, Paul A. Bristow via Boost-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> From: Daniel James via Boost-users
>>
>> It also wouldn't be too
>> hard to let you add an id to 'endsect', and check that it matches the
>> initial 'section', e.g. the would be an error:

s/the/this/

>>
>>     [section:some Something]
>>
>>     [endsect:something]
>
> I think perhaps that I'd prefer to use the id rather than full title:

That was meant to illustrate an error - it's an error because it
doesn't match the id.

> From an writing point of view, it would be easiest to be able to copy and paste the whole item
>
> [section:some Further info on Something Complicated]
>
> and edit to
>
> [endsect:some Further info on Something Complicated]

I'm not keen on that, it would be out of date if the section title
changed. Also would confuse people if there's text that's just
ignored.
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost-users [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Daniel James via Boost-users
> Sent: 21 April 2017 13:24
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Daniel James
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] really dumb question about quickbook
>
> On 21 April 2017 at 12:10, Paul A. Bristow via Boost-users
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> From: Daniel James via Boost-users
> >>
> >> It also wouldn't be too
> >> hard to let you add an id to 'endsect', and check that it matches the
> >> initial 'section', e.g. the would be an error:
>
> s/the/this/
>
> >>
> >>     [section:some Something]
> >>
> >>     [endsect:something]
> >
> > I think perhaps that I'd prefer to use the id rather than full title:
>
> That was meant to illustrate an error - it's an error because it
> doesn't match the id.

Well that's all right then ;-)

(Note to self: Always good to read *exactly* what was written).
 

> > From an writing point of view, it would be easiest to be able to copy and paste the whole item
> >
> > [section:some Further info on Something Complicated]
> >
> > and edit to
> >
> > [endsect:some Further info on Something Complicated]
>
> I'm not keen on that, it would be out of date if the section title
> changed. Also would confuse people if there's text that's just
> ignored.

Agreed.

Paul

_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
In reply to this post by Daniel James via Boost-users
Sorry to bug you guys - but ..

I'm following the information at
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_64_0/doc/html/quickbook/syntax/block.html#quickbook.syntax.block.paragraphs

which seems sensible to me.

So I create 3 paragraphs.  OK
I place them in the document out side of any section - looks OK
I place them inside a top level section - looks OK

But when I place them inside a lower level section - the paragraphs are
run together as one block of text.

So the question is - are there circumstance where the above explanation
of how to create para graphs doesn't apply.

Any help appreciated.

Robert Ramey



_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: really dumb question about quickbook

Daniel James via Boost-users
On 21 April 2017 at 19:54, Robert Ramey via Boost-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> But when I place them inside a lower level section - the paragraphs are run
> together as one block of text.

What do you mean by 'inside a lower level section'? I suspect that
there's something wrong somewhere else in your markup.

> So the question is - are there circumstance where the above explanation of
> how to create para graphs doesn't apply.

Of the top of my head: inside some tags, inside list markup, in
escaped code. Things like that. Although often they'll just fail to
parse.
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Loading...