I proposed an edit to an answer, and it was rejected. What am I not getting here?

The Edit

I added what I thought was relevant information:

1. The fact that strtoumax and strtoimax are C99 functions. Not all C compilers support C99, especially in the embedded realm.
2. A relevant hyperlink as a reference for the functions.

My Reasoning

On (2), the editing page says, among other reasons, we should edit posts

• To add related resources or hyperlinks

It also says

• To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)

Does (1) fall under clarification?

Rejection Reasons

The edit was rejected by 3 of 4 reviewers. Two selected as their reason,

This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.

(I'm assuming that "post" means the answer I attempted to edit, not the question...)

I was not intending to address the author of the answer; I was adding the detail for the benefit of future readers. The answer was good, and my detail far too small to be its own answer. And why should readers have to trudge through comments to see what can easily be included in the main text?

The other reviewer selected as his/her reason,

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I'd say it makes it more accurate, as noted in (1) above. None of the other descriptors in the first sentence were my goals. Not superfluous, per (1). And I don't see how it harms readability.

What am I missing?

I proposed an edit to an answer, and it was rejected. What am I not getting here?

The Edit

I added what I thought was relevant information:

1. The fact that strtoumax and strtoimax are C99 functions. Not all C compilers support C99, especially in the embedded realm.
2. A relevant hyperlink as a reference for the functions.

My Reasoning

On (2), the editing page says, among other reasons, we should edit posts

• To add related resources or hyperlinks

It also says

• To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)

Does (1) fall under clarification?

Rejection Reasons

The edit was rejected by 3 of 4 reviewers. Two selected as their reason,

This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.

(I'm assuming that "post" means the answer I attempted to edit, not the question...)

I was not intending to address the author of the answer; I was adding the detail for the benefit of future readers. The answer was good, and my detail far too small to be its own answer. And why should readers have to trudge through comments to see what can easily be included in the main text?

The other reviewer selected as his/her reason,

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I'd say it makes it more accurate, as noted in (1) above. None of the other descriptors in the first sentence were my goals. Not superfluous, per (1). And I don't see how it harms readability.

What am I missing?

I proposed an edit to an answer, and it was rejected. What am I not getting here?

The Edit

I added what I thought was relevant information:

1. The fact that strtoumax and strtoimax are C99 functions. Not all C compilers support C99, especially in the embedded realm.
2. A relevant hyperlink as a reference for the functions.

My Reasoning

On (2), the editing page says, among other reasons, we should edit posts

• To add related resources or hyperlinks

It also says

• To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)

Does (1) fall under clarification?

Rejection Reasons

The edit was rejected by 3 of 4 reviewers. Two selected as their reason,

This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.

(I'm assuming that "post" means the answer I attempted to edit, not the question...)

I was not intending to address the author of the answer; I was adding the detail for the benefit of future readers. The answer was good, and my detail far too small to be its own answer. And why should readers have to trudge through comments to see what can easily be included in the main text?

The other reviewer selected as his/her reason,

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I'd say it makes it more accurate, as noted in (1) above. None of the other descriptors in the first sentence were my goals. Not superfluous, per (1). And I don't see how it harms readability.

What am I missing?

I proposed an edit to an answer, and it was rejected. What am I not getting here?

The Edit

I added what I thought was relevant information:

1. The fact that strtoumax and strtoimax are C99 functions. Not all C compilers support C99, especially in the embedded realm.
2. A relevant hyperlink as a reference for the functions.

My Reasoning

On (2), the editing page says, among other reasons, we should edit posts

• To add related resources or hyperlinks

It also says

• To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)

Does (1) fall under clarification?

Rejection Reasons

The edit was rejected by 3 of 4 reviewers. Two selected as their reason,

This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.

(I'm assuming that "post" means the answer I attempted to edit, not the question...)

I was not intending to address the author of the answer; I was adding the detail for the benefit of future readers. The answer was good, and my detail far too small to be its own answer. And why should readers have to trudge through comments to see what can easily be included in the main text?

The other reviewer selected as his/her reason,

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I'd say it makes it more accurate, as noted in (1) above. None of the other descriptors in the first sentence were my goals. Not superfluous, per (1). And I don't see how it harms readability.

What am I missing?