Re: [Boost-users] really dumb question about quickbook

-----Original Message----- From: Boost-users [mailto:boost-users-bounces@wowbagger.crest.iu.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel James via Boost-users Sent: 21 April 2017 11:22 To: boost-users@lists.boost.org 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 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