So I've just tried to edit an answer for the first time, here:
Rejected three to two.
I'm not really trying to 'fight the decision'. I mean, I don't really have a stake in this.
But I'm kind of confused by the (canned?) response:
This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost.
Lets start with intent. Surely this was:
- To attempt to provide an alternate answer the question, by means of dropping to shell
and invoking POSIX-standard command. (Which happens to be
commandin this case).
So I really don't think the edit changes 'intent'.
As for meaning, well yes, it does change the meaning - it changes it from something that doesn't work -
but only just quite - to something that does, essentially by prefixing four characters and adding a set of quotes. If this is why it was rejected, it would seem to me to fly in the face of:
Is it OK to edit a correct answer for fullness instead of answering?
Constantly editing answers to appear correct (second response, not re: "constantly").
This was effectively the basis on which I was justifying the edit, as it isn't remotely close to this situation: Adding to partially correct/partially complete answer
So: if anyone could clarify this for me, it would be appreciated. What's best practice to follow at this point?
Comment? New answer?
(I assume its kind of bad form to say "I tried editing this, but it was rejected, so..."
But honestly I'd kind of like to do so, since I really don't think it needs a new answer, or commentary.)