NB. It's not an argument against "keeping the original code intact""keeping the original code intact". I understand the point, I agree with the benefits and I realize the issues that may arise should we digress.
I'd like to hear the opinion of the community on the difference in regard to editing the original question after an answer's been provided between SO and CR.
My point is that on SO, the original question should contain the problematic issue and the answer needs to present a version relieved of said issue. Improving the original code to embrace the presented solution makes the latter meaningless and the former unhelpful, right? The protocol of SO dictates IMnsHO: "if XXX, apply to YYY" and both parts are necessary.
The point with CR (again - IMnsHO) is rather to present a proper, readable and maintainable coding style. As such, it's of little interest how badly the original is composed and the essential goal's to conform to a higher standard (as agreed upon by the community). The protocol of CR dictates then: "whatever your XXX, apply YYY", which (when looking at the relevant part) boils down to "apply YYY".
Of course I'm making the issue simpler than it is because I wish to focus on the principle of the matter. Has the above discrepancy been considered? What was the verdict and its rationale?
Those in my network who use CR, do so to see good quality code to fetch inspiration for themselves, strengthen their best-practices and motivate co-workers to conform to a predictable quality. Are we odd doing such? If not, wouldn't it be a good idea to consider improving the questions, as to follow the pattern "subject: declaring unsing(...) in methods? body: like-this, like-that, ta-da!"?
