It is OK to Add an Explanation

Above there's already a contradicting answer. Originally, I was posting this as a comment. Decided to submit my own answer and let the community decide:

While there are subtleties that may be missed, I feel strongly that some explanation is better than no explanation. I'd hope we'd all prefer to live in a CGCC populated with well-explained answers and minimal code-only answers.

Since we already have a consensus on code-only answers being low-quality and undesirable, it seems to post an answer without one is to implicitly give permission to the community to add it.

Fine Print

• An explanation may not be edited, one must comment to correct. That would assume better knowledge, risk losing the aforementioned 'subtleties' and require the edit's approver to know the language.

• If they add a note along the lines of Will add explanation, usually waiting to see if it garners attention before slaving away, one shouldn't edit until 3 days have passed since they posted.

Note

I'm trying this out generally. However, I can see the case for conventional & verbose languages like C/Python/Ruby/Haskell, as there's far greater ambiguity with those.

If downvoted into oblivion, I will post another answer specifically for terse, SBCS (usually golf) languages like APL/05AB1E/CJam as that seems far less controversial. For example, given /⍨⍳4 → 1223334444 adding:

⍳4        ⍝ Integers 1..4
   ⍨      ⍝ Duplicate argument on each side
     /    ⍝ Replicate each element `n` times

It is OK to Add an Explanation

Above there's already a contradicting answer. Originally, I was posting this as a comment. Decided to submit my own answer and let the community decide:

While there are subtleties that may be missed, I feel strongly that some explanation is better than no explanation. I'd hope we'd all prefer to live in a CGCC populated with well-explained answers and minimal code-only answers.

Since we already have a consensus on code-only answers being low-quality and undesirable, it seems to post an answer without one is to implicitly give permission to the community to add it.

Fine Print

• An explanation may not be edited, one must comment to correct. That would assume better knowledge, risk losing the aforementioned 'subtleties' and require the edit's approver to know the language.

• If they add a note along the lines of Will add explanation, usually waiting to see if it garners attention before slaving away, one shouldn't edit until 3 days have passed since they posted.

Note

I'm trying this out generally. However, I can see the case for conventional & verbose languages like C/Python/Ruby/Haskell, as there's far greater ambiguity with those.

If downvoted into oblivion, I will post another answer specifically for terse, SBCS (usually golf) languages like APL/05AB1E/CJam as that seems far less controversial. For example, given /⍨⍳4 → 1223334444 adding the following hardly seems controversial:

⍳4        ⍝ Integers 1..4
   ⍨      ⍝ Duplicate argument on each side
     /    ⍝ Replicate each element `n` times

#It is OK to Add an Explanation

Above there's already a contradicting answer. Originally, I was posting this as a comment. Decided to submit my own answer and let the community decide:

While there are subtleties that may be missed, I feel strongly that some explanation is better than no explanation. I'd hope we'd all prefer to live in a CGCC populated with well-explained answers and minimal code-only answers.

Since we already have a consensus on code-only answers being low-quality and undesirable, it seems to post an answer without one is to implicitly give permission to the community to add it.

###Fine Print

• An explanation may not be edited, one must comment to correct. That would assume better knowledge, risk losing the aforementioned 'subtleties' and require the edit's approver to know the language.

• If they add a note along the lines of Will add explanation, usually waiting to see if it garners attention before slaving away, one shouldn't edit until 3 days have passed since they posted.

###Note I'm trying this out generally. However, I can see the case for conventional & verbose languages like C/Python/Ruby/Haskell, as there's far greater ambiguity with those.

If downvoted into oblivion, I will post another answer specifically for terse, SBCS (usually golf) languages like APL/05AB1E/CJam as that seems far less controversial. For example, given /⍨⍳4 → 1223334444 adding:

⍳4        ⍝ Integers 1..4
   ⍨      ⍝ Duplicate argument on each side
     /    ⍝ Replicate each element `n` times

It is OK to Add an Explanation

Above there's already a contradicting answer. Originally, I was posting this as a comment. Decided to submit my own answer and let the community decide:

While there are subtleties that may be missed, I feel strongly that some explanation is better than no explanation. I'd hope we'd all prefer to live in a CGCC populated with well-explained answers and minimal code-only answers.

Since we already have a consensus on code-only answers being low-quality and undesirable, it seems to post an answer without one is to implicitly give permission to the community to add it.

Fine Print

• An explanation may not be edited, one must comment to correct. That would assume better knowledge, risk losing the aforementioned 'subtleties' and require the edit's approver to know the language.

• If they add a note along the lines of Will add explanation, usually waiting to see if it garners attention before slaving away, one shouldn't edit until 3 days have passed since they posted.

Note

I'm trying this out generally. However, I can see the case for conventional & verbose languages like C/Python/Ruby/Haskell, as there's far greater ambiguity with those.

If downvoted into oblivion, I will post another answer specifically for terse, SBCS (usually golf) languages like APL/05AB1E/CJam as that seems far less controversial. For example, given /⍨⍳4 → 1223334444 adding:

⍳4        ⍝ Integers 1..4
   ⍨      ⍝ Duplicate argument on each side
     /    ⍝ Replicate each element `n` times