I’ll repeat the quote from above:
I repeat the link to a discussion that began and had it’s last activity before August 2018 and 1.0 Ccall to libgsl fails
According the to the rule I quoted, this topic would be closed and marked as outdated. But, this discussion is not outdated in any way. In fact it is the only source of information on a relevant topic. It would be relevant even if subsequent changes in Julia affected syntax or semantics. But in fact it applies with no caveats whatsoever to the current master branch. Marking it in any way that might prejudice a reader regarding it’s usefulness or accuracy would be counter productive. Furthermore, the discussion about ccall and libgsl would benefit from further details or context. Closing it would be counter productive.
I agree that separating obsolete from relevant material online is a problem. But, solving it in an automated way is highly problematic, essentially impossible (… maybe a huge supervised machine learning project that covers online fora) Furthermore, leaving it up to moderators, votes, authority levels, a la stack exchange, is highly problematic, although it may be the best model currently.
There is clearly a trade-off here: some false positives are inevitable.
I’m not optimistic about this. But, it’s a good question. I’d like to see some statistics.
This discussion is more than … (years/months) old. It is possible that code examples no longer work without modifications because of changes in Julia or packages (if applicable).
To my eye it looks innocuous. Seems of marginal value to me. The date is usually the first thing I look at. Neither would it dissuade me from reading the libgsl post. Maybe it wouldn’t dissuade most people,… dunno … I guess I have inadvertently necroposted in the past. Requiring an extra click before posting to an ancient topic might not hurt.
I am most interested in archiving or flagging or whatever topics that are only of historical interest.