Sometimes this is done. tilly did something similar in gethostbyaddr question. Originally, it was named gethostbyaddr, but that conflicted with the gethostbyaddr function and you could no longer go directly to the function description by typing the function name in the search box. I believe that there are several other nodes whose names conflict with functions. I suppose we should seek those out and fix them at some point. If anyone wants to /msg Ovid with those, I'll try to fix them, if appropriate.

I think your idea of renaming root nodes to more accurately reflect upon the poster's intent is good. However, I also know that some, if not most, of the editors tend to be reluctant to change a person's words. How do others feel about this? I, for one, really don't want to do that unless there's a consensus that this is a Good Thing.

In the gethostbyaddr question, though, even the new title is not accurately reflecting the poster's intent. The Anonymous Monk's title seemed to suggest that the poster thought that gethostbyaddr might be the issue, when the reality is the poster clearly realized that a print statement did not appear to do anything. In this case, however, it was not a print problem per se, but a buffer problem. The poster was not aware that /s?he/ needed to autoflush the filehandle. So what do we name the node: "gethostbyaddr question", "Print not working", "Filehandle not being Flushed"? Who chooses the name? For nodes that have a variety of problems contributing to the issue, what do we name the node then? I'm sure we can find a happy medium, but I'm cautious until I hear some feedback.

Cheers,
Ovid

Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.