12
\$\begingroup\$

This has recently been brought up that we should improve this off-topic/close reason.

While we can agree that this VTC reason is less than ideal (perhaps too broad, should be two separate reasons) right now in Beta we are limited to 3 pre-defined off-topic reasons.

someone-else-code The full reason (emphasis mine):

Questions must involve real code that you own or maintain. Pseudocode, hypothetical code, or stub code should be replaced by a concrete example. Questions seeking an explanation of someone else's code are also off-topic.

@chillworld brought up in chat that

Maybe we should change "Questions seeking an explanation of someone else's code are also off-topic." to "Questions seeking an explanation of code are also off-topic."

As a matter of example, it's conceivable that any of us go back to code we've written months or years ago, and not understand our own code quite clearly because it's not well documented or well-written.

To clarify

Some mentioned that this question might be a duplicate of this one (and I can understand the sentiment) since this specific wording practically started a flaming/trolling war between CR regulars and a regular on MSE (as well as a new user) I think it might be wise to revisit this.

\$\endgroup\$
14
\$\begingroup\$

I now agree that the wording can be unhelpful or even incendiary (possibly construed as an accusation of plagiarism, even). I propose:

Questions must involve real code that you own or maintain. Questions asking how or why code works are off-topic. Pseudocode, hypothetical code, or stub code should be replaced by a concrete example.

\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$

I disagree. The purpose of this close reason is to ensure that questions contain real code that belongs to the asker.

The purpose of the "first" close reason is to ensure that the code works.

The right place to put a note about 'understanding your own code' is in the first close reason, because, if you don't understand your own code, how can you tell if it works? Adding the "understand your own code" to the second close reason makes the rest of that close reason unclear, and fuzzy.

The close reasons are supposed to be simple:

  1. your code works as intended
  2. it is your code (real code)
  3. the question must have the right presentation (include the actual code).

The "understand your own code" fits in to the first off-topic reason, not the second one.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Then maybe remove the word "explanation" from the second close reason? It could be replaced with "review" \$\endgroup\$ – Ben Aaronson May 20 '15 at 13:00
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ While I think you make a good argument and in a perfect world I would be inclined to agree, I think 200's suggestion is more practical. \$\endgroup\$ – Donald.McLean Aug 21 '15 at 12:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'll take a little bit of redundancy if it means less closed questions. Can't hurt to reiterate an important point. Also, it's totally imaginable that someone would post some old cold, they know for sure works, but can no longer understand. \$\endgroup\$ – Legato Aug 21 '15 at 13:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .