13
\$\begingroup\$

Function to erase a character in a string

This question is currently closed with the hypothetical/stub/pseudocode close reason.

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.

Yet the code is none of this.

I agree that it the question is obscenely short (and probably deserving of all of its downvotes), but is that the reason for the close votes? Because I can't see any other reason for the close votes.

The thing is, we've already decided that there's not a minimum length for code in questions.

This isn't a question. This is a billboard for reopen votes.

\$\endgroup\$
11
\$\begingroup\$

I concur, and agree with its reopening.

If you don't have anything to say about the code, you don't have to review it. If you don't like the question, you are free to downvote according to your conscience. If you feel strongly enough about it, you might even vote to close it as "Unclear what you are asking". Personally, I think it's somewhere between "meh" and "OK".

However, this question was in no way about hypothetical code, example code, or stub code. Please keep in mind that that closure reason is intended to guard against generic best-practices questions where the code cannot be taken literally. That reason does not apply here.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ In fairness, even if that was the wrong close reason, off-topic questions should stay closed, even if they have the wrong close reason. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Jul 16 '15 at 1:46
3
\$\begingroup\$

I have seen a number of questions, involving exclusively large code, reviewed in only about 15 lines.

The function I posted may be a one-liner, but that doesn't mean it:

  • Is not subject to review
  • Doesn't offer variety of possible improvements regarding the readability or the functionality
  • Is not useful code

And yet, it received a pretty good review. Why shuffle the rules instead of reconsidering the question's actual value? It makes no sense to me.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Perhaps all the downvotes were because others saw the question as greatly lacking in value. Sure, that doesn't make it off-topic, but it can still be seen as a lower-quality question. \$\endgroup\$ – Jamal Jul 16 '15 at 15:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ While I obviously agree that the question is on-topic... I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone agreeing with your assessment of the question's value. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Jul 20 '15 at 20:26
-5
\$\begingroup\$

I will explain my close vote. According to the Help Center/On Topic, questions must be about one of:

  • Best practices and design pattern usage
  • Security issues
  • Performance
  • Correctness in unanticipated cases

I don't see any of those as answerable. The question is too short to say anything meaningful. What I posted in a comment is only a guess because we don't know what the OP's actual code looks like.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ The OP posted their actual code. Why are you trying to review stuff that's not posted? They want the posted code reviewed. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Jul 16 '15 at 0:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ Do you disagree with the only answers to this meta? If so, please post a dissenting opinion there and make a case for a minimum length of code required for a question to be on-topic. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Jul 16 '15 at 0:50
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't like one-liner questions either. But it's not true that nothing meaningful can ever be said. That's why community consensus is to keep them open. \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Jul 16 '15 at 1:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nhgrif Posted a dissent there. \$\endgroup\$ – o11c Jul 16 '15 at 1:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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