Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:39:51AM +0100, Gilles Sadowski wrote: >> > > IMHO, perfect would be to *attach* a complete lilypond file, so that >> > > people >> > >> > Well, IMO, it's better to have a short file in the body of the email. >> > Because that way I can look at it and identify errors without having to >> > save >> > an attachment and then open it up in another application. >> >> I don't *have* to save to attachment to just view it. > > That's nice. But like Carl, I find it easier to look at the file > in the body of an email.
You can use an inline attachment for that, like this:
#(define woozle (make-hash-table 239)) onceinclude = #(define-music-function (parser location str) (string?) #{ \include $(if (eq? (car (hash-create-handle! woozle str #t)) str) str "/dev/null") #} ) \onceinclude "/dev/null"
This also has the advantage that the mailer is not going to mangle spaces and line ends. > That's nice. I find it easier to copy&paste. Inline parts give you both. >> [If you cannot view attached text files inline, I guess that it's a >> shortcoming of the mail client you use...] > > That's nice. Oh come on. The above may at worst look a bit wordy if you use a MIME-incapacitated mail reader. -- David Kastrup
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user