Why return type of a function is not considered in polymorphism? has been closed as a duplicate of a Java question.

The tagging on the question is all that makes it clear that it is a C# question, however we ask people not to repeat a tag in the title.

closed as off-topic by Patrick Hofman, Monica Cellio, ale, Werner, ᔕᖺᘎᕊ Nov 11 '15 at 18:53

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question pertains only to a specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. Questions on Meta Stack Exchange should pertain to our network or software that drives it as a whole, within the guidelines defined in the help center. You should ask this question on the meta site where your concern originated." – Patrick Hofman, Monica Cellio, ale, Werner, ᔕᖺᘎᕊ
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Not really @RichardTingle. The fact that Java and C# happen to handle a situation in a similar manner (though logically so) does not really make it language agnostic. Nor does it truly make it a dupe IMO. – Bart Mar 24 '14 at 12:26
  • @Bart I think I've come around to that position (and have voted to reopen) I suppose it depends if "polymorphism" has a strict definition (IEEE floating point style) that precludes return type – Richard Tingle Mar 24 '14 at 12:28
  • 1
    Agree with @Bart (surprise! ;)) and voted to reopen. – Shadow The Dragon Wizard Mar 24 '14 at 12:29
  • You probably meant to write "we ask people not to repeat a tag in the title". – Jack Mar 24 '14 at 13:37

No, I don't believe it should.

If for some reason the language design changes (how unlikely that might be) then you have an outdated duplicate that will only confuse people.

Furthermore it is harder to draw analogies with other language features if you have to restrict yourself to what is common between Java and C# instead of just focusing on the language in question.

If there is a C# version of this question already then it should be closed as a duplicate of that, otherwise left open.

That being said: there is a language-agnostic version already linked to the question in the side which I believe addresses the question. If the user has a specific question about the C# implementation, then he should clarify this, otherwise it's a duplicate of that one.

  • 1
    The "language-agnostic version" is hard to understand by someone that is just learning their first language. So I would not consider it a good duplicate, as it is not as well targeted. – Ian Ringrose Mar 24 '14 at 13:59
  • 2
    @IanRingrose: then that should be an indication that that question can use an additional answer that explains it in simpler terms. Questions shouldn't be split up according to difficulty level. – Jeroen Vannevel Mar 24 '14 at 14:29
  • 1
    It is impossible to write a good single simple answer without know the language the reader understands. If a question needs more than one answer, then it should be closed as “too board” – Ian Ringrose Mar 24 '14 at 15:15

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