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" Subject: Support in the list Was: "Re: watcom c/c++ vs djgpp?" In-Reply-To: References: <37F5A024 DOT 1ABC AT earthlink DOT net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk 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