Graham Percival <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
