Timeline for A moderator edited my question. I don't like the way it looks now
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2018 at 9:46 | comment | added | Ignat Insarov | @SimonForsberg That being said, I am happy with your change. | |
| Mar 7, 2018 at 9:45 | comment | added | Ignat Insarov | @SimonForsberg Considering the code is in Haskell and uses some advanced type level manipulations − in essense, automated proving, − it may respond to tests well, but still not be correct in the sense that the supposed proofs are false. The reuse of the same functions in less friendly circumstances may then break the behaviour. In other words, the code may permit what I want it to, but also permit something I did not think about. I believe this definition of correctness is intuitively clear to proficient Haskell programmers, familiar with the type system tricks I attempt to peruse. | |
| Mar 7, 2018 at 9:36 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg Mod | @IgnatInsarov (2) I agree that at least the second question in the title should be in the post body and have therefore edited your question to add that. Regarding the question "Is this correct?" I chose to not include that because it may sound like you haven't tested the code. You could edit and ask if this is "good practice" however, or another similar formulation - but I recommend against asking "Is this correct?" If it works, then it is one way of doing it and can therefore in a way be considered "correct". | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 21:34 | comment | added | Ignat Insarov | (4) There is a formal standard that this edit does not match. The changes are at the same time lossy, uncareful, and trivial. Indeed, if this is all that had to be changed, it must mean the question is good enough. In particular, there were no spelling errors, the meaning was clear, there were no minor mistakes to be corrected, and no related resources to be added. As I showed previously, the supposed improvements are rather debatable. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 21:28 | comment | added | Ignat Insarov | (3) Concerning length, I don't believe my question looked inappropriate with its longish title. If there were a limitation, it should have been enforced by technical means; but the input field is spacious enough and the titles wrap nicely. I don't believe a questioner is actually restricted so severely in the length of their titles. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 21:27 | comment | added | Ignat Insarov | (2) The questions in the title − I consider them very useful. The reader may proceed from the title straight to the code, skimming the actual text paragraphs. They will know what I want them to tell me from the start. If the editor moved the extended title to the body of the post, with appropriate highlighting, I could have understood. But they simply trimmed the title, thus reducing the meaning of my post! | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 21:19 | comment | added | Ignat Insarov |
I have to make some footnotes. (1) It was not monospace bold, but monospace cursive, and this is because these parts are auxiliary and should only draw a small bit of attention. In no way they are headlines; they are captions. They do not represent major partitions of the thought. This edit thus creates false structure. Consider yourself: are these important thoughts that received so much highlighting?
|
|
| Mar 6, 2018 at 21:07 | history | answered | Vogel612 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |