Skip to main content
Code Review

Return to Question

deleted 40 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Jamal Mod
Jamal Mod
  • 34.9k
  • 2
  • 53
  • 106

I have a question about my Code Review Stack Exchange post: Polymorphic implementation for == with CRTP

Post. It was put on holdon hold as off topicoff topic stating (mainly) that the use case is theoretic or not explained.

Reading the actual reasons for off topicoff topic it doesn't seem that theoretical usage is a reason (as opposed to pseudo-code or hypothetical) -- as long as the presented code is real in the sense that it is working code with actual logic. Moreover there is even a tag for reinventing-the-wheel which is merely for theoretical code (code that you would probably not implement, as it is already written -- without requiring OPs to state the reason for reinventing-the-wheel -- it can be just for fun or for learning purposes).

By the way, after being put on hold, I added in a comment a relevant use case. But I do believe this is a valid and interesting C++ code for review anyhow (not being pseudo-code neither hypothetical).

So, do So, do you think my original post it theoretical? or maybe pseudo-code or hypothetical? doDo you think it is off topic?off topic or maybe we are too quick with off topicoff topic?

I have a question about my Code Review Stack Exchange post: Polymorphic implementation for == with CRTP

Post was put on hold as off topic stating (mainly) that the use case is theoretic or not explained.

Reading the actual reasons for off topic it doesn't seem that theoretical usage is a reason (as opposed to pseudo-code or hypothetical) -- as long as the presented code is real in the sense that it is working code with actual logic. Moreover there is even a tag for reinventing-the-wheel which is merely for theoretical code (code that you would probably not implement, as it is already written -- without requiring OPs to state the reason for reinventing-the-wheel -- it can be just for fun or for learning purposes).

By the way, after being put on hold, I added in a comment a relevant use case. But I do believe this is a valid and interesting C++ code for review anyhow (not being pseudo-code neither hypothetical).

So, do you think my original post it theoretical? or maybe pseudo-code or hypothetical? do you think it is off topic? or maybe we are too quick with off topic?

I have a question about my Code Review Stack Exchange post: Polymorphic implementation for == with CRTP. It was put on hold as off topic stating (mainly) that the use case is theoretic or not explained.

Reading the actual reasons for off topic it doesn't seem that theoretical usage is a reason (as opposed to pseudo-code or hypothetical) -- as long as the presented code is real in the sense that it is working code with actual logic. Moreover there is even a tag for reinventing-the-wheel which is merely for theoretical code (code that you would probably not implement, as it is already written -- without requiring OPs to state the reason for reinventing-the-wheel -- it can be just for fun or for learning purposes).

By the way, after being put on hold, I added in a comment a relevant use case. But I do believe this is a valid and interesting C++ code for review anyhow (not being pseudo-code neither hypothetical).

So, do you think my original post it theoretical or maybe pseudo-code or hypothetical? Do you think it is off topic or maybe we are too quick with off topic?

edited tags; edited title
Link
200_success
200_success
  • 144.2k
  • 4
  • 113
  • 280

Question about "Polymorphic implementation of == with CRTP" on hold as arguably being off topic

Source Link
Amir Kirsh
Amir Kirsh
  • 263
  • 1
  • 1

Question on hold as arguably being off topic

I have a question about my Code Review Stack Exchange post: Polymorphic implementation for == with CRTP

Post was put on hold as off topic stating (mainly) that the use case is theoretic or not explained.

Reading the actual reasons for off topic it doesn't seem that theoretical usage is a reason (as opposed to pseudo-code or hypothetical) -- as long as the presented code is real in the sense that it is working code with actual logic. Moreover there is even a tag for reinventing-the-wheel which is merely for theoretical code (code that you would probably not implement, as it is already written -- without requiring OPs to state the reason for reinventing-the-wheel -- it can be just for fun or for learning purposes).

By the way, after being put on hold, I added in a comment a relevant use case. But I do believe this is a valid and interesting C++ code for review anyhow (not being pseudo-code neither hypothetical).

So, do you think my original post it theoretical? or maybe pseudo-code or hypothetical? do you think it is off topic? or maybe we are too quick with off topic?