Message-Id:	<3.0.6.32.19991003152752.009e5420@dce03.ipt.br>
X-Sender:	csrabak AT dce03 DOT ipt DOT br
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date:	Sun, 03 Oct 1999 15:27:52 -0300
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From:	"Cesar S. Rabak" <csrabak AT ipt DOT br>
Subject:	Support in the list Was: "Re: watcom c/c++ vs djgpp?"
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.991003120029.16555E-100000@is>
References:	<37F5A024 DOT 1ABC AT earthlink DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

At 12:02 03/10/99 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
[snipped]
>Given that the full reply to a non-trivial question is usually quite
>long (see the average length of each section in the FAQ), and that a
>non-full reply runs a risk of missing cricual details, could you
>please tell why this is not a good policy, and how can it be made
>better?
>
Eli,

I also participate in a Brazilian newsgroup about C/C++ (in fact it include
Java, but this is OT :-) ) which, you should surmise it is in Portuguese.

When questions about DJGPP appear, I attempt to answer them in our native
language and if it is a FAQ I direct people to the DJGPPFAQ.

I received a sugestion to put a link in the replies with the URL of the
pertinent FAQ section in the web, because some of the new users did not
(still) d/l'd the (info or other format) FAQ.

There were mixed feelings for some have to ask precisely because they have
trouble with foreing languages, but otherwise it seems it is a very good idea.

Let me know what do you think, or perhaps we could discuss this in the
list/NG so we standarize on this?

[]

Cesar

- Raw text -