Might seem nitpick, but I'm generally interested in how to make this idea work for everybody, so I would like to bring up the use-case when there are more than 1 class inputs defined. In this case the expectation is that the dynamically dispatching class is in the top left corner of the connector pane, but there is nothing to enforce it. With that said, I think it would be useful to somehow match this information to an input to show which one is the class that does the dispatching.
For example there are two classes on the input of this VI, but only one is dynamic dispatch.
Usually, the top one shall be the one that dispatches, but since noting forces it, it is possible to do this:
In this case having the note dynamic dispatch clearly doesn't tell the whole story, because one cannot identify which object will define the method to be executed. I know that this is a corner case, but IMHO an important corner case.
In that particular case you can by examining the VI name. Regardless since the notes are global to the VI it doesn't matter which connector. Maybe another idea someone could make would be to add this detail to the connector pane section of context help.
My bad, it was indeed dynamically dispatching the class in it's namespace but I did forgot to update the front panel. Only swapped the connectors on the connector pane.
Still, I feel like in cases where there are more than one class inputs of a VI the note is not a well placed solution. I would prefer to indeed put this information right in the section for the connector pane. Especially given the fact that the namespace information is not present, and in many cases would not be practical to be displayed in the context help window.
I would also like to note that the context help window's main purpose is to provide a quick information about what is happening in the subVI without opening the subVI, therefore any information that is there should be able to tell the complete picture to be useful. I understand that your proposed solution solves 90-95% of use-cases, but it seems to me that a solution that can get in the 95-100% range is similar in effort, therefore I'm suggesting an alternate.
I agree adding this note covers 100% of cases. The VI is either Dynamically Dispatched or it isn't. DD is a mode of calling the VI, just like reentrancy.
If the specific DD terminal should be flagged with an asterisk or something, in my opinion that's a different idea worth submitting.
Disclaimer: This comment is entirely about how the forum works. Feel free to point me to a forum topic where a discussion like this could belong.
I realize that the option which would improve this idea is different enough to start a new idea altogether.
At the same time if the owner of the improvement for the idea (in this case me) doesn't feel the prospect is good enough to start a new thread, then it is likely taking away Kudos from the original post and also create no alternate option to vote for.
I have some options in my head that could solve this problem, but at the same time I'm open to hear other ideas on how to make the forum a bit more open for collaborations without dispersing the kudos on ideas solving the same problem in slightly or entirely different ways.
