I'm getting the sense that this very question is a type of question that you're concerned with.
We understand that some people can be rude, and we try to flag the rude and unhelpful posts, and the moderators delete them.
But what is a lot more common is comments by people genuinely interested in answering your question, who want more information.
I'll use this question as an example. You made a request to pay more attention to undesirable comments. We've all seen various types of undesirable comments, but we do feel as that is being paid attention to.
But it's clear that you feel like you're experiencing a problem, so We're asking for an example question, so that we can understand what you think is a problem. Without an example, what we have to do is go through your recently asked questions, and just guess what you're taking issue with, and we're afraid that we might be wrong in our guess.
We want to answer your question, but we have to know what's going on. The same is true for programming questions, and examples are a very effective way of letting us know what's going on.
- When we ask for code, It's not because we want to make you do more work. It's because we think that there might hints in your existing code that will help us answer your question.
- When we ask for an error message, It's because we think think that the error message will help us answer your question.
So far, you've cited this question:
PHP __toArray() or __toObject() override?
and you had trouble with the following comment:
Show examples of wanted behaviour.
at the time, your question was the following:
Is there an equivalent to get a reorganized standardized object from a
normal class? Something that works along the same lines as PHP's
__toString() override method.
Now I'm not a PHP guy, so I'll compare this to c#. If you asked a similar question about c#, I wouldn't understand it very well. All c# classes inherit from the
Object class. I would assume that you're looking to do 1 of two things
- you want to treat your class like a generic object, in which case, you'd cast it to an object
- You want a base
Object class which is like a copy of your class, except that only has properties already defined in
Object. (this option doesn't make very much sense).
The most reasonable thing to assume is that maybe your output is something other than those two scenarios, so I'd be inclined to ask:
What do you want you object to look like when you're done with it?
which is just another way of wording
Show examples of wanted behavior.