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?

  • \$\begingroup\$ On top of the close reason already provided, I think your question is lacking description. Please take a good look at How to get the best value out of Code Review - Asking Questions, update your question accordingly and it wouldn't surprise me if the question is quite salvageable. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mast Mod
    Jan 16, 2019 at 14:36
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ 👍 done -- question updated \$\endgroup\$
    – Amir Kirsh
    Jan 16, 2019 at 14:46
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Note that one of the contributing factors to the question being hypothetical, prior to your added explanation in Rev 5, is the fact that you used a "foobar" example with class A and class B. Realistic concrete use cases are preferred, since they tend to give a clearer understanding of what you are trying to do. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 16, 2019 at 23:26

1 Answer 1


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

Yes, and unclear, since it was lacking a description. In my opinion, it has been sufficiently improved since closure. So I've initiated the reopening process by casting the first vote.

Update: the question has been reopened.


You must log in to answer this question.

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