# Does adding an explanation in an edit make it “deviate from the intent”?

I suggested an edit to a question after it was suggested in another comment when I added some explanatory discussion.

However, the edit got rejected on the grounds of changing the intent, although I only added braces to the code that make the syntax more clear and added one sentence about the semantics (search-replace-replacelength). Does that already "change the intent"? I'd rather not create a new answer basically quoting one sentence from the documentation, especially if it's an old and accepted answer and thus won't get much exposure so people would first see the accepted answer and still need to scroll through the others to find the explanation.

To me, the intent or idea of the answer is completely untouched, it helped me with my problem, I only added some background information about TeX that allows removing " unnecessary " brackets.

• I think your edit was good, and see no problem it shouldn't be applied. Should you want to suggest the edit again, probably other reviewers will see it and hopefully accept. Or if you wish I (or another user) can do the edit for you as well. Keep in mind that reviews are done by people, and a lot of them whose native language isn't english, so a lot of human error can creep in the process (here's a similar example). Unless the edit was rejected for being blatantly harmful, the reason is probably human error and lack of attention. – Phelype Oleinik Mar 6 at 0:27
• @PhelypeOleinik I've read that it's not appreciated if you repost the review, so I'd rather not repost it. But if you don't consider the edit harmful, I have nothing against you applying it, on the contrary! Next time I try to provide a more detailed explanation in the summary of the edit. – larkey Mar 6 at 16:49

I think the rejection stemmed from

• Code change (which is often suspect) while keeping the original code as a viable "alternative" in the comment. Also, some people use abbreviated code forms, like \frac12 instead of \frac{1}{2} or \newcommand\mymacro without bracing arguments; and

• The additional description of what's going on which may have already been highlighted in the comments (and therefore already forms part of the post per se).

The above two elements, combined with the fact that it's an old post may have made the edit seem less important or unnecessary. Regardless, consistency and more detailed explanations have always been a welcome component of edits for me. For example, it would have been weird (or even confusing) if you had some bizarre mixture like the following:

\lstset{
literate =
*::1
{abc}{def}{3}
g{hi}2
}

since the replacement components aren't clearly defined if you don't understand how TeX is consuming them.

I've updated the answer to reflect your suggested edit and promote consistency in interpretation.

• Thanks for the explanation, I now understand the arguments against better, although to me consistency and clarity is more important, as well. Also thanks for amending the answer! – larkey Mar 6 at 19:12