Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

RE: how many levels of 'RE:' do we need :-)

by muppetBoy (Pilgrim)
on May 17, 2000 at 21:29 UTC ( #12182=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to how many levels of 'RE:' do we need :-)

IMHO: Replies to replies should probably have Re: prepended to them. It would be clearer to give the Original replies a different title, but this would make scanning the newest nodes confusing. I think the way things stand at the minute the Re:Re:'s are necessary to avoid a 'flat' discussion which would not always make sense.


Comment on RE: how many levels of 'RE:' do we need :-)
RE: RE: how many levels of 'RE:' do we need :-)
by misty (Hermit) on May 17, 2000 at 21:51 UTC
    as someone somewhere already suggested, Re(3): or similar would look much better than Re:Re:Re:
      Or you could do a RE(username): subject where the user name is the author of the comment you are replying to.
        Your idea has my vote. I like Re(BigJoe): Subject or combining the two, you can do Re(BigJoe,3): Subject

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://12182]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (10)
As of 2014-12-25 04:10 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (159 votes), past polls