On 2016-04-29 12:30, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 29.04.2016 um 12:28 schrieb Federico Bruni:
Il giorno ven 29 apr 2016 alle 10:50, Simon Albrecht
<simon.albre...@mail.de> ha scritto:
On 29.04.2016 10:11, Johan Vromans wrote:
. Provide a minimal working example (or a minimal not-working
example). The stress lies on *minimal*. This shows us that you
have at least tried to look into the manual before asking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_Working_Example
Do not include the example in the text, but attach it to the message.
That’s not always sensible or necessary. If the e-mail is plain text
anyway, then there’s little problem with inline code.
I think that inline minimal examples are much better:
- you can easily comment its contents in the reply
- in the archives they appear immediately and you can read them
quickly instead of downloading .bin files
I think this needs some clarification:
Inserting *code* examples within the text is usually very good for
communication. I think the suggested ban on inline examples referred to
*images*
There's one single reason why I sometimes prefer even small code pieces
in attachments, despite the fact that I usually like to read them
inline: If there is a lone ">>" (which happens quite often in LilyPond
code, for obvious reasons), it messes up with many mail client's idea of
what a quote is. I know, it's well-specified that such a construct can
be escaped with whitespace at the beginning of the line, but not every
client implements that.
So my relaxed suggestion is: feel free to write small code pieces
inline, but if you do so, place no ">>" on lines of themselves. As if
anyone (including myself) were to remember that...
Best,
Alexander
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
