Q:

Hint versus full answer when the OP is struggling

This question emerges from a short chat with André Nicolas in the comments of his answer to this question.
I decided to downvote his answer because I considered that he should have given hints on how to solve the problem rather than providing the OP with a direct answer. He answered

Possibly, but my feeling is that it is difficult enough for OP to understand a direct answer. 

If I read him well, his case is that, when the OP is having a hard time with understanding even a direct answer, hints might not be helpful.
My position was rather opposite

My case : it is not always the case that a difficulty to understand even direct answer implies that it it preferable to be presented a direct answer. Being walked through the process of solving the problem may be a better way to eventually understand the final answer rather than proceeding backward and trying to understand a direct answer after it has been presented.

Although, I recognize that this is a difficult question and to which there is no general answer. Still, when answering a question, one must decide between one of the two option (or something in between).

Can you think of specific circumstances in which would indicate that a hint will be more helpful than a full answer?
Do you that hints tend to benefit only sufficiently "advanced" OP and that it is better to provide struggling OP with complete answers? If so why?

A:

This isn't so much an answer to your question as it is an elaboration on your "something in between."  It was too big for a comment.
Sometimes I like to write what I call roadmap solutions, which are more or less halfway between a hint and a full solution. Roadmaps consist of a list of intermediate hints / leading questions guiding the reader through the proof, with spoiler-ed out proofs of each individual step.  Example:
Question.
Prove that $A=B$.
Answer:
Step 1.  First we want to show that $A\subseteq B$.

 Take an $a\in A$.  Because (something), $a\in B$.  Since this holds for all $a\in A$, $A\subseteq B$.

Step 2. To show that $B\subseteq A$, it will be easier to use the contrapositive.

 Take an $b\notin A$.  Due to reasons, $b\notin B$.  So, by contrapositive, $B\subseteq A$.

Step 3. Now we have $A\subseteq B$ and $B\subseteq A$.  Does this mean that $A=B$?

 Yes.

(done)
This method puts faith in the asker to actually try to work out each hint before proceeding to the next, rather than simply looking at the answers right away and reading it like a full proof.  Sometimes they'll do it, sometimes they won't.  The hope is that it will at least give them the opportunity to work the proof out step by step by providing contingencies in case they get stuck on one small part, or by providing a path to the proof in case they can't see the forest for the trees right away. Personally, I like learning this way, especially when I'm in unfamiliar territory, so I write answers like this every so often.

