10
\$\begingroup\$

More to the point, should I delete this answer? I went through the help center pretty thoroughly and searched on here on Meta and couldn't really find anything that answers that question.

The answer explains the situation pretty well, I think, so I won't reiterate it here. The additional issue is a minor one, and there's no way it could have been revealed on review.

Are answers on CR just for the code reviews themselves, and not for posting the resulting fixed code? If so, I'll delete the answer. Because if that's the case, then that answer doesn't really add anything to the site.

\$\endgroup\$
10
\$\begingroup\$

Looking at our iterative review meta post:

  1. Posting a self-answer

    If you want to show everyone how you improved your code, but don't want to ask another question, then post an answer to your own question. Selfie answers are acceptable on Stack Exchange sites, and even encouraged: there is a self-learner badge you can earn for that. Selfie answers can even be upvoted, downvoted, or commented on in their own right. However, your answer must meet the standards of a Code Review answer, just like any other answer:

    • Code-only answers that don't actually review the code are insufficient and are subject to deletion.
    • Describe what you changed, and why. (see above point)
    • Give credit to any other users who may have helped you. As stated in (1) above, posting a selfie that merely reiterates an existing answer without adding new insight would deprive another user of well deserved reputation. Also consider making your selfie community wiki if you feel that earning reputation from it would be unfair. However, if it's not done yourself, and a moderator determines that the self-answer is primarily dependent on other answers, then they are allowed to activate the CW status automatically.
  1. You're encouraged to post a self answer.
  2. Your answer isn't a code dump. If you can answer the following question with a "yes" then it should be ok: "does your post have one insightful comment?"

    Once a Timer instance has been cancelled, it is no longer valid and should not be used.

  3. You have stated what you've changed. To make sure you follow our rules it would be best to explain why you change the code.

  4. You've credited the other person and stated what you changed due to them.

    You may want to make your post a Community Wiki. I think it's fine if you don't as you've made a good point about the timers.

In short, I think it's fine. The only thing I would fault you for is not saying why you've followed their review. But that's a stretch at best IMO.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ OK, got it. I missed the iterative review post, it seems. I didn't specify why I made the other code changes because I figured that @Reinderien 's review was a self-evident basis for those changes. \$\endgroup\$ – Mark Benningfield Mar 20 at 12:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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