I asked a question to see if the standard library had a class that operated a little differently than conventional iterators, rather than having to roll my own. I didn't know quite how to word my google search and hence I came to SO for a little clarification.

I know how to ask a question, and I know the close vote reasons well. I'm not asking to find a tool (a stand alone utility or another program, or even another library) or an off-site resource (a tutorial, a guide, a book, a website, another forum, etc.) and yet the question has 3 close votes for this reason.

To me, this is a perfectly valid question since it's relevant to the standard library specifically. I'm not asking for a recommendation - in this case, there is a perfectly clear, straightforward answer to the question.

I've been harassed in the comments about it, and now the question is on the verge of being closed. I've stated quite clearly in the answers that I didn't know what type itr was, therefore it's just named itr as pseudo code.

Note that it has garnered 5 upvotes and a single downvote (who has commented as to why), and has a very relevant and well written answer that has been accepted with 6 upvotes. To me, I view it as a healthy question.

What is wrong with this question?

Why are we discussing a question that hasn't even closed yet? A question that you've already accepted an answer to? –  Robert Harvey Jun 16 at 20:16
Because it has 4 close votes, indicating there is a problem with the question. –  Qix Jun 16 at 20:18
I don't know for which revision the votes had been cast, but the "C++ standard compliant iterator that never ends?" version is really borderline to "what library is out there that has such an iterator that I could use" –  PlasmaHH Jun 16 at 20:55
@PlasmaHH I realized that too, which is why I rolled back that person's edit and edited the title myself. (The close votes were on the C++ standard compliant version) –  Qix Jun 16 at 20:56

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

You asked the question the wrong way. Instead of asking "Is there a class for frobbing widgets?" or "Please recommend a library for widget frobbing?", you should have asked "How can I frob this widget?"

It is more than a semantic difference. In the latter case, you will be forced to give details on the specific problem that you're trying to solve, which serves to clarify and narrow the scope of the answers.

That said, I don't think this is a valid application of that close reason. You could certainly improve the question, but it is not something I would vote to close even as it stands.

As far as "harassed in the comments", I'm not really sure that's true—at least assuming that there are no deleted comments I can't see. But even if you had been harassed, I'd say you brought that on yourself. You asked "Downvoter, care to explain your downvote?", and he did. Then you disagreed with him and pressed for further explanation. So he tried to offer it. Rinse and repeat. It serves rather little purpose, which is why we tend to discourage comments like that. Besides, worrying about one downvote isn't productive. As ultimately happened here, the accumulation of descriptive close votes would clue you into a problem with the question, and then you could bring the issue to Meta for a productive discussion.

True, it could be improved, which I probably will now that it's caused such the response. It's given an answer that is usable and the question itself could be useful to other readers in the future. Remember that the title and wording were written before I knew what I was looking for. Now that I know I need a back_inserter I can play off of those words to provide better wording for the problem. –  Qix Jun 16 at 20:21
As for asking why the downvoter was downvoting, it was the first vote on the question, before any answers were given. I figured I wanted to snub it before it escalated further. –  Qix Jun 16 at 20:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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