# Best Practice for using Notation, $Pre, MakeExpression in a package I'm setting up a package that defines a custom Notation. I'd like to inquire about best practices and possible issues of: 1. using the Notation Package 2. using $Pre and \$PreRead
3. overloading MakeExpression
-
This is a really interesting set of questions. However, because this is a Q&A site, not a discussion site, it would be better to (a) break this up into three questions as numbered and (b) be a bit more specific about your actual problem (e.g., what are the non-standard notations and input conventions you actually want to use). I would also recommend you format function names as code for easy reading. Here's how to do it. –  Verbeia Oct 1 '12 at 10:47
@NoEscape - please keep it civil. The point we are trying to make is that StackExchange sites have a specific purpose - Q&A. They aren't designed for open-ended discussion. To that end, we prefer questions to be crafted in a way that admits a specific answer. You might find this guide useful, along with this blog post by Jon Skeet. As I said before, these are interesting questions, but it would be better to split them into three separate posts, and provide a little more detail for each. –  Verbeia Oct 1 '12 at 12:53
@NoEscape I agree with the folks that, in the way you aksed this, those 3 questions are too broad and need to be split. I also understand that for your problem, they are all a part of the same thing. So, here is my suggestion to you: to narrow it down, write some toy code which does what you want for some simple cases, then post it and ask how one would improve it and possibly do things differently. This way, you will give us some more narrow context within which those 3 questions could be considered together, as different aspects of the single question you really have. –  Leonid Shifrin Oct 1 '12 at 13:27
@NoEscape In other words: if there is some missed power in manipulations with the syntax (in which I personally believe), we as a community are not ready to appreciate that enough to tolerate a very general answer, nor to produce one which would be good enough for us to keep. In fact, if you believe that this is a fruitful direction, then more narrow questions from you may help us accumulate this knowledge and start appreciating it more. –  Leonid Shifrin Oct 1 '12 at 13:52
@NoEscape - I repeat my earlier request to keep it civil. The tone of your comments to rcollyer in particular, as well as to rm-rf, has been completely uncalled for. This has nothing to do with your current reputation and everything to do with your attitude. There is no need to fly off the handle in response to a mildly worded suggestion to make your questions more focused so they admit a specific answer. Three questions means three opportunities for upvotes from the same user, so I don't know what you're complaining about. We are trying to help, there is no need to bite back. –  Verbeia Oct 1 '12 at 22:20