Hi. > >>> Gilles asked for an attachment I don't exactly know what to attach so > >>> I've attached the latest pdf output. > >> > >> What was wanted was the exact working code to get bad output, which you've > >> included in the body of the email. Perfect! > > > > IMHO, perfect would be to *attach* a complete lilypond file, so that people > > trying to help don't have to copy/paste/fill the missing bits/fiddle with > > long streaks of blank spaces, etc; but just save and compile. > > 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. I said that it's easier (if the purpose is to compile it) to just save it than to cut/copy the relevant bits from the body of the mail. [If you cannot view attached text files inline, I guess that it's a shortcoming of the mail client you use...] > It's best if long files are not used, because if you can get a short file to > show your problem, it's better for your thinking and better for the people > who are trying to answer. Short or long is not the question; if you have to compile, you must have an input file. And it should be just long enough to show the problem. Best, Gilles _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
