Re: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? by Anonymous Monk on Nov 22, 2017 at 20:34 UTC
There is always something to add. For example, what (versions) did I try? Might help someone with bisecting. In any case, good nodes are edited and well-formed. Would you write an essay that has text in the title, n/t in the body? ^#1 #1 But apparently, some people write footnotes that are longer than the article. And if I recall correctly, there was a full volume (a book) that served as a single footnote... So YMMV?	[reply]
Re^3: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Nov 22, 2017 at 20:51 UTC
The question really is, would you write an essay to ask the temperature? It is a simple, self-contained question that enriches the monastery by being asked and answered and comparing it to anything more complex or problematic is fallacious. It's surreal to me that anyone, let alone a few anyones, has an issue with the brevity of the post from a known good monk or that one would insist on verbosity as a social benefit as opposed to RFC:Repetitive Verbosity Considered Harmful.	[reply]
Re^4: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? by Anonymous Monk on Nov 22, 2017 at 21:05 UTC
"verbosity" ne "context" Hurry up and approve the question.	[reply]
Re^2: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 22, 2017 at 17:13 UTC
There should still be a post even if it's the same as the title.	[reply]
Re^3: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Nov 22, 2017 at 17:38 UTC
Why? As I see it, it would add nothing and would effectively be anti-DRY. I appreciate terseness where appropriate and I don't understand the negative reaction here.	[reply]
Re^4: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? -- good habits by Discipulus (Canon) on Nov 22, 2017 at 18:58 UTC
Mah, I messaged the OP few seconds after he posted telling him there was almost no content. I supposed some error by his part. After this i messaged in the CB that after 15 minutes I would marked the post for reaping and I do it. Error or not I perceive not so kind a post with just the subject; I receive many mails of this sort at work and I dislike them. Anyway we have consideration and I was relying on it: I downvoted the post and marked for reaping but, as you can see, we collectively decided for the post to stay: at the moment it has Keep: 3, Edit: 5, Reap: 2. So if it's ok for us it's ok for me. In any case I still dislike posts with question in the title; this is against principles of How do I post a question effectively? that starts with: > If you want to get good answers: Paste actual code that reproduces the.. So even few words of kindness would be more appreciated by me in posts, even if very syntetic. Consider also that the OP had 336 posts already wrote before this one and he it's here since 2007. If DRY is good habit it's not a religion and you risk to become too DRY as a Martini .. ;=) L* There are no rules, there are no thumbs.. Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? -- good habits by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Nov 22, 2017 at 19:18 UTC
Re^6: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? -- good habits by LanX (Saint) on Nov 23, 2017 at 16:44 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^5: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? -- good habits by LanX (Saint) on Nov 23, 2017 at 15:06 UTC
Re^4: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 22, 2017 at 19:20 UTC
The title always repeats the post, so you're arguing we should never use a title (because it's anti-DRY and because you appreciate terseness). That obviously makes no sense. The title and the body of the post have different roles, so DRY doesn't apply.	[reply]
Re^5: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" ruffle feathers? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Nov 22, 2017 at 20:00 UTC
Re^6: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" ruffle feathers? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 23, 2017 at 15:41 UTC
Re^5: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Nov 22, 2017 at 19:44 UTC
Context , doc-link & what he tried by LanX (Saint) on Nov 23, 2017 at 07:25 UTC
n/t	[reply]