in reply to Re: RFC - How to ask...
in thread RFC - How to ask...

Good point. How about adding -- after "sample data (input)." -- the following?

Of course, if your problem is that you can't get the script to compile, despite your best efforts -- perhaps because the error message doesn't make sense to you -- go ahead and post the section where strict tells you that you have an error (and, of course, the error message, verbatim).

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: RFC - How to lose your audience
by tye (Sage) on Feb 14, 2009 at 17:02 UTC

    If you want this to be really useful (seems unlikely, frankly), brevity is key. The code needs to "reproduce the problem".

    "This is a little long" *bing* large portion of audience reads no further.

    - tye        

[reply]

      Replace "that demonstrates your problem" with "that reproduces the problem" ?? Seems very reasonable to me.

      re "*bing*" -- that's probably true, and I will seek an alternate introduction... perhaps by s/This is ... scan it. It's/This is.../. (You may not really satisfied with that, either; neither am I.)

      Re the length -- well, maybe I should overcome the "laziness" I mentioned above, and do an initial Markup in the Monastery-like precis.

      Sometimes "brevity" !eq ("precision" | "comprehensiveness" | "actually helpful")

[reply]
        Sometimes "brevity" !eq ("precision" | "comprehensiveness" | "actually helpful")

        Of course. But for a node meant to be read by a new poster who has a problem that they want an answer to, "not extremely brief" directly leads to "going to be ignored by most of the target audience" which makes it not "really useful", IMO (though it will surely still be useful for people who like to write boiler-plate replies).

        Replace "that demonstrates your problem" with "that reproduces the problem" ??

        Sorry, the text was too long for me to spare the time to read it. That is why I only commented on a (brief) reply (I just searched for "reproduce" -- which is a clearer word to use than "demonstrate"). Augmenting an erroneous "must compile" instruction with yet another paragraph is certainly going in the wrong direction.

        - tye        

[reply]

In Section Meditations