Return to Answer

I'll have to go with @rolfl's answer instead of @200_success's. While saying 'initial code authorship is only part of the software lifecycle' is a very nice idealism*, code refactoring by current code maintainers of the posted code here can't possibly depend on newer answers to the original question years on. I would imagine that the current code maintainers ought to have posted their own questions, or explored newer and better solutions by themselves in the future.

Very hypothetically speaking, if we have helped someone solve the Y2K problem here (handle YYYY instead of YY), should we allow new answers to solve the Y10K bug (handle YYYYY instead of YYYY) down the road?

Therefore, I think we should naturally let questions 'retire', and if we do come across way-too-helpful answers on ages-old questions suggesting new features that are not available originally, perhaps an edit remarking so should do it.

* - This reminds me of coding for violent psychopaths, but that's another story...

I'll have to go with @rolfl's answer instead of @200_success's. While saying 'initial code authorship is only part of the software lifecycle' is a very nice idealism*, code refactoring by current code maintainers of the posted code here can't possibly depend on newer answers to the original question years on. I would imagine that the current code maintainers ought to have posted their own questions, or explored newer and better solutions by themselves in the future.

Very hypothetically speaking, if we have helped someone solve the Y2K problem here (handle YYYY instead of YY), should we allow new answers to solve the Y10K bug (handle YYYYY instead of YYYY) down the road?

Therefore, I think we should naturally let questions 'retire', and if we do come across way-too-helpful answers on ages-old questions suggesting new features that are not available originally, perhaps an edit remarking so should do it.

* - This reminds me of coding for violent psychopaths, but that's another story...