## 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 went and read the older page. I am frustrated by it. StackExchange tradition claims this can be addressed by a couple of approaches.

To me: it is a question about a programming language. (Within the scope of 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: accepted answer is considered to be wrong

https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/24322/what-should-be-done-with-accepted-yet-wrong-answers

One of the solutions says "add a comment to point out what's wrong with the answer".

The result is a longstanding annoyance. Search "accepted wrong answer" on [Meta.SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/). 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](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/394080/799204)). 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"). It will then be easier to read and understand the comments. The critique will be clearer, 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...