I tried making two different edits to a post. The first was not approved because it "should have been a comment," which while I'm on the fence about I do feel is entirely fair because I added in text pointing towards what I edited (I like to point out potential easy mistakes to avoid in my own answers).
The post in question essentially had the correct answer, but had failed to add a parameter which was required for the way the function call was being used. It was clear what the intent was, and the edit did not change the underlying message in any way.
The second edit, which was literally just adding the correct parameter to the function call to work properly as the original post clearly intended (returning an associative array instead of an object... because the poster was using the return as if it was an associative array) was approved by two and rejected by two for "This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost" and a third for "should be a comment." I took care to explain the revision in the edit summary field.
I'm really not sure how to take that. Are edits only intended for fixing typos and adding tags, because this is barely above the level of being a typo or basic syntax error: it was just a mistake in [assuming|forgetting] the default return was the opposite format, when setting a single parameter would fix it to return as obviously (by the code) expected. Should I assume that the people who reviewed my second edit maybe didn't understand the function call being used enough to realize what was going on, and that the change I made was literally to make the code work as the original post intended? If so should I just submit the same edit over again?
It just seems a little bizarre to me. I could write a second answer with the correct function call usage and attribute the original answer, or comment and hope the original poster noticed and made the proper changes, but to me this seemed like an appropriate case for using the edit feature, even going by the guidelines shown when editing a post. If that's not the case, then I would suggest the guidelines may need revising for better clarity.
I've gone through at least a few of the questions and answers on meta with regards to edits, and found a few where substantive changes which heavily changed the message were addressed--which makes complete sense--but did not see any with at least light searching which involved questions of changes which fixed a small, easily understandable error in the answer so as to correctly fit the message. Personally I feel that's what this was, in the case of the second edit especially. Maybe that's a matter of opinion. After all, I could have suggested changes involving using the object returned by default rather than lightly fixing the call to return the expected array, but those would have been far more substantial code rewrite or not even worked with the methods being evoked on the return. It was a small, easy mistake to make, much like any typo is, and the correction of simply adding the right flag to fit the obviously anticipated return seems equally small when properly taken into context.
To add some context to my question, I would reference the answer to Was this a valid edit that I should have approved?. While the situation is by degrees different (misquoting from a text versus a small code error of leaving off a flag where the intent was clear to use the return as if that flag were set) I would personally tend to feel my edit fits the spirit addressed in the answer, namely
This was almost certainly unintentional, and the edit was in keeping with the intended meaning of the answer.
Granted, that may just be my personal opinion that my own edit (the second one particularly) was done in that same light. If I'm wrong about that then I'm beyond ok with being wrong. It's not a question of me feeling offended (I'm not), it's more that it seems inconsistent (and gawd I hate inconsistencies with a passion, hah) to me.
At the same time, I do by degrees agree with the points @Pekka has made in his answer below and the following comments which expanded on that, with regards to making sure comments illuminate issues properly for the original author. But then I would ask, what is the point of edits notifying the original author of the edit, and what is the point of the edit comment field? I realize that much of this revolves around issues of community norms, but if those norms have so far diverged from the guidelines given, then maybe one or the other needs addressing? However, I feel it would be presumptuous of me to make such a suggestion without more comments in that direction from those better informed on how the community trends and what is considered best practice for SO.