Return to Answer

Problem 1: one considers the accepted answer to be wrong

To me: it is a question about a programming language. (One which is on-topic for Unix.SE). The expression !x++ is evaluated as !(x++). To answer the old question "exactly", as it requests, this can be broken down into x++ first, then the ! operator. It should not have been broken down into !x, followed by the ++ operator.

Sometimes the accepted answer will remain unchanged, which is longstanding annoyance. Search "accepted wrong answer" on Meta.SE. But we don't want mods to work around it and judge lots of complex cases. I don't want mods to have to delete accepted answers or allow special edits, unless there is quite an obvious justification (example). You could set more site-specific standards. But I'd like moderators who manage people problems, not who pretend they know everything about Unix.

For example, surely we should lean towards cleaning up by removing the following comment. Since @Gnouc deleted their comment, it is hard to work out what the reply to @Gnouc means :-). I.e. nominate the comment for deletion, by flagging it as "no longer needed" ("this comment is outdated"). If the comment is deleted, it will be easier to read and understand the comments. The critique will be easier to see, so it will be clearer that one should look at the alternative answers.

Problem 1: one considers the accepted answer to be "wrong"

To me: it is a question about a programming language. (One which is on-topic for Unix.SE). The expression !x++ is evaluated as !(x++). To answer the old question "exactly", as it requests, this can be broken down into x++ first, then the ! operator. It is a mistake to break it down into !x, followed by the ++ operator.

Sometimes the accepted answer will remain unchanged. This is a longstanding annoyance (search "accepted wrong answer" on Meta.SE). But we don't want mods to work around it and judge lots of complex cases. I don't want mods to have to delete accepted answers or allow special edits, unless there is quite an obvious justification (example). You could set more site-specific standards. But I'd like moderators who manage people problems, not who pretend they know everything about Unix.

For example, shouldn't we lean towards cleaning up by removing the following comment? Since @Gnouc deleted their comment, it is hard to work out what the reply to @Gnouc means :-). I.e. nominate the comment for deletion, by flagging it as "no longer needed" ("this comment is outdated"). If the comment is deleted, it will be easier to read and understand the comments. The critique will be easier to see, so it will be clearer that one should look at the alternative answers.

To me: it is a question about a programming language. (One which is on-topic for Unix.SE). The expression !x++ is evaluated as !(x++). To answer the question "exactly", it can be broken down into x++ first, then the ! operator. It should not have been broken down into !x, followed by the ++ operator.

Tradition says "comments are not for extended discussion". If the comment has not convinced the answerer, write an alternative answer. (Already done).

For example, the presumption should be to clean up by removing the following comment. Since @Gnouc deleted their comment, it is hard to work out what the reply to @Gnouc means :-). Nominate the comment for deletion by flagging it as "no longer needed" ("this comment is outdated"). If the comment is deleted, it will be easier to read and understand the comments. The critique will be easier to see, so it will be clearer that one should look at the alternative answers.

Does that feel like exploiting the system? I concede it devalues the comment-writer and their effort... but isn't the system supposed to hold comments as lower value? and this writer is experienced enough to expect it...

To me: it is a question about a programming language. (One which is on-topic for Unix.SE). The expression !x++ is evaluated as !(x++). To answer the old question "exactly", as it requests, this can be broken down into x++ first, then the ! operator. It should not have been broken down into !x, followed by the ++ operator.

Tradition says "comments are not for extended discussion". If a comment has not convinced the answerer to edit, the solution is to write an alternative answer. (In this case, this has already been done).

For example, surely we should lean towards cleaning up by removing the following comment. Since @Gnouc deleted their comment, it is hard to work out what the reply to @Gnouc means :-). I.e. nominate the comment for deletion, by flagging it as "no longer needed" ("this comment is outdated"). If the comment is deleted, it will be easier to read and understand the comments. The critique will be easier to see, so it will be clearer that one should look at the alternative answers.

Does that feel like exploiting the system? I concede it devalues the comment-writer and their effort... but isn't the system supposed to hold comments as lower value? and this comment-writer is surely experienced enough to expect it...

Should the new question be closed as a duplicate?

This feels wrong to me.

The duplicate is not necessary to provide an answer where we didn't already have one. ilkkachu wrote a perfectly great answer to the new question.

The "duplicate" is different: the new post is a more narrow question. I thought we liked questions that we can answer very specifically :-).

As Isaac pointed out, the result looks really strange. The accepted answer on the old page does not attempt to address the narrow question. Because the old question does not explicitly ask the narrow question. In fact, reading the old answer tends to confuse and suggest the opposite of the correct answer to the narrow question.

extended ranting which is not relevant to the above

I am frustrated by the older page. StackExchange tradition argues this can be addressed by a couple of approaches.

To me: it is a question about a programming language. (One which is on-topic for Unix.SE).  !x++ is evaluated as !(x++). To answer "exactly", it can be broken down into x++ first, then the ! operator. It should not have been broken down into !x, followed by the ++ operator.

Problem 1: one considers the accepted answer to be wrong

What should be done with accepted, yet wrong, answers?

One of the approaches is "provide a correct answer [...] You can also add a comment to point out what's wrong with the answer."

Sometimes the accepted answer will remain unchanged, which is longstanding annoyance. Search "accepted wrong answer" on Meta.SE. But we don't want mods to work around it and judge lots of complex cases. I don't want mods to have to delete accepted answers or allow special edits, unless there is quite an obvious justification (example). You could set more site-specific standards. But I'd like moderators who manage people problems, not who pretend they are omniscient in our subject matter.

Problem 2: comment chaos

Tradition says "comments are not for extended discussion". If the comment has not convinced the answerer, write an alternative answer. (Already done).

When necessary, use a short comment to criticize the answer. It would be most convenient to link to the alternative answer. Though if I see a clear critique, I'm probably going to scroll down to look for the alternatives anyway.

The traditional answer to comment chaos is "comments are transient".

For example, the presumption should be to clean up by removing the following comment. Since @Gnouc deleted their comment, it is hard to work out what the reply to @Gnouc means :-). Nominate the comment for deletion by flagging it as "no longer needed" ("this comment is outdated"). If the comment is deleted, it will be easier to read and understand the comments. The critique will be easier to see, so it will be clearer that one should look at the alternative answers.

@Gnouc I don't see any serious error in this answer. If that is what you're referring to, the incrementation is indeed applied after the value of the expression is calculated. It's true that the incrementation happens before the printing, but that's a minor imprecision which doesn't affect the basic explanation.

Does that feel like exploiting the system? I concede it devalues the comment-writer and their effort... but isn't the system supposed to hold comments as lower value? and this writer is experienced enough to expect it...

Should the new question be closed as a duplicate?

This feels wrong to me.

The duplicate is not necessary to provide an answer where we didn't already have one. ilkkachu wrote a perfectly great answer to the new question.

The "duplicate" is different: the new post is a more narrow question. I thought we liked questions that we can answer very specifically :-).

As Isaac pointed out, the result looks really strange. The accepted answer on the old page does not attempt to address the narrow question. Because the old question does not explicitly ask the narrow question. In fact, reading the old answer tends to confuse and suggest the opposite of the correct answer to the narrow question.

extended ranting which is not relevant to the above

I am frustrated by the older page. StackExchange tradition argues this can be addressed by a couple of approaches.

Problem 1: one considers the accepted answer to be wrong

To me: it is a question about a programming language. (One which is on-topic for Unix.SE). The expression !x++ is evaluated as !(x++). To answer the question "exactly", it can be broken down into x++ first, then the ! operator. It should not have been broken down into !x, followed by the ++ operator.

-> What should be done with accepted, yet wrong, answers?

One of the approaches is "provide a correct answer [...] You can also add a comment to point out what's wrong with the answer."

Sometimes the accepted answer will remain unchanged, which is longstanding annoyance. Search "accepted wrong answer" on Meta.SE. But we don't want mods to work around it and judge lots of complex cases. I don't want mods to have to delete accepted answers or allow special edits, unless there is quite an obvious justification (example). You could set more site-specific standards. But I'd like moderators who manage people problems, not who pretend they know everything about Unix.

Problem 2: comment chaos

Tradition says "comments are not for extended discussion". If the comment has not convinced the answerer, write an alternative answer. (Already done).

When necessary, use a short comment to criticize the answer. It would be most convenient to link to the alternative answer. Though if I see a clear critique, I'm probably going to scroll down to look for the alternatives anyway.

The traditional answer to comment chaos is "comments are transient".

For example, the presumption should be to clean up by removing the following comment. Since @Gnouc deleted their comment, it is hard to work out what the reply to @Gnouc means :-). Nominate the comment for deletion by flagging it as "no longer needed" ("this comment is outdated"). If the comment is deleted, it will be easier to read and understand the comments. The critique will be easier to see, so it will be clearer that one should look at the alternative answers.

@Gnouc I don't see any serious error in this answer. If that is what you're referring to, the incrementation is indeed applied after the value of the expression is calculated. It's true that the incrementation happens before the printing, but that's a minor imprecision which doesn't affect the basic explanation.

Does that feel like exploiting the system? I concede it devalues the comment-writer and their effort... but isn't the system supposed to hold comments as lower value? and this writer is experienced enough to expect it...