So recently I got a comment on one of my old answers.

When I wrote the answer I didn't know too much about writing scopes in any programming language (I still don't). I did my research and posted my conclusions of my findings, with links and everything. Now this commenter comes by and says, that I am mistaken. That Canonical isn't trying to push C to program scopes as their premier language but C++.

I rechecked my sources and couldn't find any mention of C++. So I got back to the commenter and asked why he thinks it's C++ and not C. On this he made a general statement about what C and C++ is and isn't and changed my answer to support his view: that Canonical is push C++ programmed scopes.

Now, I'd just change my answer back to my version and flag the comments as off-topic. But since this a 10k+ user I wanted to double check how to react. Also I found it strange that all of a sudden his two comments had gotten up-votes.

I don't even care about C or C++, I want (my/the?) answer be as factually correct as possible.


4 Answers 4


Ok, so it seems the original plan was to port scopes to C, but later the plan changed to C++ and the original answer didn't get updated. Fast forward to now and the API is all C++. Your answer came up around a scopes discussion in chat regarding the scope development competition. Since all of the API was written in C++ your answer was assumed to be off slightly, someone added a comment to this effect.

When they checked out your source a formatting confusion made it look like it said C**, which was reasonably taken to mean a generalization, hence your answer was edited.

Because of this confusion I talked to David Planella in IRC and he has updated the answer to reflect the current situation.

Unfortunately several misunderstandings made this look somewhat sketchy (factual wise), but those have all been cleared up so we should all be good :)

Apologies for the confusion!

  • I +1'ed this... Commented Nov 7, 2014 at 19:29

enter image description here enter image description here


I don't have an axe to grind. I edited your answer because it wasn't accurate, and at the time you wrote it you didn't understand the difference. It crossed my screen for some reason, I honestly don't remember why. Probably related to the recent scopes competition (read as I didn't single you out for no reason).

So, I didn't edit David Planella's answer, which you referenced because he said the words C**. That indicates that he understands the difference and will make a future reader ask themselves what he meant. You did no such thing, so I did the edit.

I put in chat for peer review, so you're welcome to come there for some debate if you're honestly concerned.

See: this

  • Actually, the ** was just part of David's formatting (he was bolding text). I talked to him in IRC and he's updating it now though.
    – Seth
    Commented Nov 7, 2014 at 19:11
  • @hbdgaf I wish you would have responded with a link which supports your view as Seth did.
    – MadMike
    Commented Nov 7, 2014 at 19:15
  • I wish your answer was accurate... but oh well. Commented Nov 7, 2014 at 19:16
  • 1
    @hbdgaf Cool, sounds like it was all just a simple misunderstanding, things have changed and fonts are weird ;)
    – Seth
    Commented Nov 7, 2014 at 19:16

It seems that my sources weren't precise and that the high-rep commenter raised my axe-grinding flags for nothing :P

  • I talked to David Planella in IRC and he is taking a look :)
    – Seth
    Commented Nov 7, 2014 at 19:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .