Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I just posted a question on stackoverflow that got me thinking. In my question I mix between describing types that I created (such as Coordinate, which contains information about a position in a window) and built-in types, like DrawingGroup. How would be the best way to, in the future, formulate my questions to make sure that someone does not mistake any of my created types with a built-in one? My first thought was to just mark them in some way, but the question became very cluttered and hard to read (harder than it already is). Is there a way to do this that I've missed, or is it such an unusual problem that it's not worth the effort?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Time Traveling Bobby, Benjol, Pops, ChrisF, kiamlaluno Nov 20 '11 at 17:50

Questions on Meta Stack Exchange are expected to relate to the software that powers the Stack Exchange network within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I think this is Off-Topic here. It is more about code readability and maintainability then about SE. Think about it, if the SO community got problems with understanding your code, what will the poor guy who comes after you do? All in all, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Normally the specific community members know their languages, frameworks and environments good enough to know what is a built-in type and what not. On the other hand, it never hurts to explain shortly where all those types come from, but do not compromise the code samples. – Time Traveling Bobby Nov 11 '11 at 9:01
@Asylum yeah, when you put it that way I see how you're probably right. My thought process was something along the lines that people that read the code after/with me should probably have a bigger knowledge of the codebase and if not, an easier time to figure it out than someone on SO. But I guess I'll just have to put my trust in the hands of my fellow SO-nians :) – Tobbe Nov 11 '11 at 9:07
Actually, I think it would be quite useful to have a markup option to distinguish builtins from custom datatypes or classes. For example, there's lots of times when all that makes a classname unique is a namespace. – Phil Lello Nov 11 '11 at 9:22
@PhilLello: If a type/name is ambiguous, it should be clearly stated/explained in the question/code where that type comes from. – Time Traveling Bobby Nov 11 '11 at 9:26
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Someone competent in that area of development that intends to answer your question will likely recognise the types - but the easiest way might be to link to the online documentation for "built-in" types the first time you reference them.

Often giving the shortest possible listing of concerned custom types is useful and will serve to differentiate too. But sometimes that's not possible or ideal, and the question is a little long already.

share|improve this answer
As you said, the question I linked to was pretty long anyway. In future questions I'll probably do a short listing of (if any) custom types. Thanks for the answer! – Tobbe Nov 11 '11 at 9:09

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