On 20 April 2017 at 17:30, Robert Ramey via Boost-users 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.

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.htm... 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

-----Original Message----- From: Boost-users [mailto:boost-users-bounces@wowbagger.crest.iu.edu] On Behalf Of John Maddock via Boost-users Sent: 20 April 2017 19:22 To: boost-users@lists.boost.org 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.htm... 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

-----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

-----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 13:24 To: boost-users@lists.boost.org 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 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

On 20 April 2017 at 17:45, Robert Ramey via Boost-users 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 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.

-----Original Message----- From: Boost-users [mailto:boost-users-bounces@wowbagger.crest.iu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost-users Sent: 20 April 2017 17:47 To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Cc: Robert Ramey Subject: Re: [Boost-users] really dumb question about quickbook

On 4/20/17 9:31 AM, Daniel James via Boost-users wrote:

...

On 20 April 2017 at 17:25, Robert Ramey via Boost-users wrote:

...

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?

Indentation is used for code blocks. So quickbook tags aren't processed.

OK - thanks. I see now that it's explained in the Code Blocks explanation. Not where I expected to find this information.

Of all the daft syntaxes about, this almost takes the prize from bjam! I have several times reduced my follicle count by placing an errant space before a [section command] It is very difficult to spot this :-( Enjoy! Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830

On 21 April 2017 at 19:54, Robert Ramey via Boost-users 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.