# 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
```

[answer]: https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18751/when-it-is-and-is-not-acceptable-to-edit-someone-elses-post/18808#18808
[given]: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/201251/87594