@pakk-minidose, I do not understand much of the code but it is apparent that @stevengj did all the hard work, you added one line close(fle) to it, and you attributed to yourself the solution of your own question? Sorry if I got it wrong. I will gladly delete this post.
I wouldn’t worry about this; the important thing is that someone searching for this thread finds the best solution. He clearly credits me in any case.
(Regardless, I would be happy to amend have amended my post to add the close line.)
6 Likes
The problem is that there was a bug which would cause an unremovable corruption of the Julia runtime - you cannot simply close the file descriptors retroactively, hence you wouldn’t be able to open any new file.
I wanted anyone who would search for the solution to find the fixed one without reading the whole thread. If I was able to edit @stevengj 's reply, I would have done it right away, but community rules simply do not allow me to do so and this was the best solution I could find.
Now that @stevengj edited his original post please feel free to delete my comment if you wish to. I did now want to steal anyone else’s work, nor did I want to steal anyone else’s “solution” flag. My only goal was to prevent other people to run into the same issue as me.
3 Likes
Sorry it does not make sense. Proper way is to notify the author, he does the correction himself and you flag it as a solution. Simple.
Well this does not give much more sense to me:
- I do not find it very polite or effective to chase the author “could you please correct this one line of your code” when I know the exact fix. The order of actions you propose (A notifies B of a bug, B checks the code himself and does an edit, A checks that the solution works, A marks correct answer) is 4 times longer than editing it myself and includes twice as many people
- Even though the author is very active on the forums, he could simply miss my reply and not make the necessary correction. What then? Pinging him over and over until the solution appears?
- I think the author has better things to do, especially when the solution is quite simple
If I can repair something myself, I don’t know why should I bother others to do it for me. For me this makes perfect sense.
The goal of this forum is to provide effective and fast solutions to people’s problems in shortest time possible with minimum surplus effort - please correct me if I am wrong.
1 Like
There are at least three options here, and they all seem fine to me:
-
Post an updated version of the code with the fix, clearly noting that it is a correction. As long as the original source is attributed, I don’t see a problem with “stealing credit”.
-
Post the diff — for small changes, just reply and say X should be corrected to Y.
-
Hope that the original author edits the original post with the correction — this will often follow from (2). (Or you could try private communications, but this is less common and may be less likely to get a response.)
I think option (2) is probably the most common practice for longer code blocks, and often results in (3). Option (1) seems more common for few (< 5) line snippets.
In any case, when option (1) is done in good faith and with a clear link to the original, as is the case here, I think it’s fine — perhaps suboptimal in verbosity, but I don’t think it’s cause for calling out the author of the correction post.
15 Likes
Thank you for making things clear.