So, I was answering some questions, and I came across this one here.

My answer got deleted, even though mine was the one that the OP stated (in the chat transcripts) that it was correct. How should I go about this situation. I have already flagged the answer for moderator attention, but I fear that that will not get it undeleted.

To Be Clear:

It was deleted because @interjay had complained that I was leaving the answer because it was invalid, whereas, in fact, the OP had stated that it did work for him already (read the comments). Thus, my answer was correct, it just got a massive down vote wave because I made an error in my wording in the initial revision.

  • You took me quite aback with that flag. Jul 19, 2012 at 17:11
  • 1
    @BoltClock'saUnicorn sorry, I was just frustrated at the situation. None of the other comments were attempting to help the OP, and I guess I was just frustrated. Jul 19, 2012 at 17:12
  • 2
    @ajax333221 in the chat, if you notice, he also said "GREAT! This pointer stuff is killing me.", indicating that the code I provided worked. Should the OP come back with another problem, I will gladly come along and help him. That's what this site is about, after all, correct? Jul 19, 2012 at 17:36
  • @RichardJ.RossIII maybe you are right, sorry for not reading the whole thing and taking something out of context
    – ajax333221
    Jul 19, 2012 at 17:38

1 Answer 1


You are misrepresenting things here. You did not make "an error in the wording". Your answer was 100% wrong, and you acknowledged that it was, but still left it up. The OP initially said that it solved his problem but later said it didn't.

Your answer was simply wrong, and could mislead other people who may run into it. For this reason I voted to delete it.

  • 1
    The answer was correct, I made an error in saying that '++ was evaluated before *', which was incorrect. The OP had commented that my answer had worked for him, so while yes, ++*ptr == ++(*ptr), My answer helped the OP. Note that my answer said when in doubt, use parentheses, and not that the parentheses were the only thing that could be wrong. Jul 19, 2012 at 17:19
  • 2
    @RichardJ.RossIII: There was absolutely no part of the answer which was correct. All it could do was mislead people. The only thing you had going for you was that OP said (incorrectly) that your answer helped, and he later retracted this.
    – interjay
    Jul 19, 2012 at 17:25
  • 9
    @RichardJ.RossIII The original answer was utterly wrong, though it contained the good advice about doubt and parentheses. Replacing one token sequence with a syntactically equivalent one doesn't make a correct answer, even if the OP first said it worked for them (later, they said it didn't). Even now, your answer is misleading at best. The working code is equivalent to what the OP said they tried, and identical to Shahbaz' earlier code (modulo superfluous parentheses), which you left a less-than-flattering comment on. Jul 19, 2012 at 17:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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