|
From: | Alexander Kobel |
Subject: | Re: Replying to posts |
Date: | Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:50:52 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.5.0 |
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 <address@hidden> 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_ExampleDo 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 filesI 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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |