Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes:
> Am 24.08.2015 um 18:45 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes:
>>
>>> Am 20.08.2015 um 09:41 schrieb Phil Holmes:
>>>> For trivially small examples (like this is) I think most people find
>>>> it far easier to comment if you post the code in line, rather than
>>>> as an attachment. I certainly do.
>>> I just recalled this remark of yours and wanted to reply to it.
>>> I’ve taken a habit of (almost) always including code as an attachment,
>>> since thus
>>> (a) there’s no chance of it getting messed up anywhere on its path and
>>> (b) I work with Frescobaldi (as a majority of people do, I think) and
>>> to test the code I needn’t even do any copy&paste but can just open
>>> the file with Frescobaldi.
>>> On the other hand it doesn’t allow commenting inline, that’s true. So
>>> likely it’s a matter of preference. What do others think?
>> I tend to use an attachment with disposition "inline".
> And how exactly do you do that, I’ve always been wondering?
Gnus asks me how I want my file attachments when I insert them using
C-c C-m f RET
I'm appending one here so that you can see how it looks:
guitarmusic = {
\key g \minor
R1*12
r8 bes'8\1 bes'\1 bes'\1 r8 a'\1 a'\1 a'\1 r c''\1 c''\1 c''\1 r bes'\1 bes'\1 bes'\1
r bes'\1 bes'\1 bes'\1 r a'\1 a'\1 a'\1 r d''\1 d''\1 d''\1 r d''\1 d''\1 d''\1
r8 bes'8\1 bes'\1 bes'\1 r8 a'\1 a'\1 a'\1 r c''\1 c''\1 c''\1 r bes'\1 bes'\1 bes'\1
r bes'\1 bes'\1 bes'\1 r a'\1 a'\1 a'\1 d''\1 d''\1 d''\1 d''\1 d''\1 d''\1 d''\1 d''\1
}
\version "2.14.0"
\score {
\new StaffGroup <<
\new TabStaff <<
\set TabStaff.stringTunings = #`(,(ly:make-pitch 0 2 NATURAL) ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 NATURAL) ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 NATURAL) ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 NATURAL) ,(ly:make-pitch -2 5 NATURAL) ,(ly:make-pitch -2 2 NATURAL) )
{
\guitarmusic
}
>>
>>
\layout{}
}
Now how you insert inline attachments when using a different mail client
like, say, Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/31.8.0, I have no idea.
But I should think that a dedicated industry standard standalone mail
program should easily offer the same amount of functionality as some
add-on interpreted-language extension for a general-purpose text editor.
But then I don't exactly have an impressive track record guessing the
capabilities of standard applications when compared to the crude hacks
I have grown accustomed to.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
