2
\$\begingroup\$

I proposed an edit to this answer to one of my questions.

The edit consisted of replacing two single quotes with two double quotes. The sample code in the original answer failed to compile; the edited version compiled and ran as advertised.

The 6-character-minimum-edit rule forced me to add irrelevant noise to an edit that otherwise simply turned bad code into good. This number of characters restriction seems pointless and counterproductive. What is the best way of dealing with it?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I normally just add a comment that's never seen <!-- To make the edit 'substantial'. --> \$\endgroup\$ – Peilonrayz Oct 9 at 20:33
3
\$\begingroup\$

To reach the minimum edit length, instead of adding something meaningless, a better workaround is to add something meaningful, even if it's not related to the main purpose of your change. Granted, that's harder, sometimes a lot harder, but the result is better, by definition.

Another possible workaround is to leave a comment instead of editing.

I don't know of a better way to deal with it. I assume the rule was carefully tuned to the current limits to reduce meaningless edits while at the same time minimize false positives like your rare case. To dispute this rule, I suggest to post on Meta Stack Exchange instead (if it doesn't already exist).

\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

You leave a comment, and if you don't get a reaction, you go to the 2nd monitor and ask there. Padding your edit is NOT allowed and gets you an instant reject, because adding that padding is just, well, noise!

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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