Okay, so I am not really convinced myself if this is a good idea or not, or perhaps it has been discussed before and heavily flamed. It might be helpful if the LabVIEW class dynamic dispatching paradigm would recognize the GOOP-style naming convention for child class methods. If LabVIEW ignored all except the last two sections of dot-notation filenames (only for the purpose of dynamic dispatching!), then the GOOP-style naming convention could be used for child methods. This could reduce the risk of heavy LVOOP users potentially having thousands of different files in their code repositories with the same name, like "Initialize.vi","Configure.vi","Create.vi","Destroy.vi", "Close.vi", etc. It would also not upset the current paradigm for those who don't use the GOOP naming convention.
Current:
Filenames must be the same for dynamic dispatching.
In this example, PXI and cRIO are descendants of DAQ.
DAQ.lvclass:
Initialize.vi
Acquire.vi
Close.vi
PXI.lvclass:
Initialize.vi
Acquire.vi
Close.vi
cRIO.lvclass:
Initialize.vi
Acquire.vi
Close.vi
Proposed:
Only the final two sections of a dot-notation name are compared for
dynamic dispatching (sections shown in magenta are ignored).
Allows for GOOP-style filenames by those who wish to use them,
but will not disturb the current paradigm
DAQ.lvclass:
DAQ.Initialize.vi
DAQ.Acquire.vi
DAQ.Close.vi
DAQ.PXI.lvclass:
DAQ.PXI.Initialize.vi
DAQ.PXI.Acquire.vi
DAQ.PXI.Close.vi
DAQ.cRIO.lvclass:
DAQ.cRIO.Initialize.vi
DAQ.cRIO.Acquire.vi
DAQ.cRIO.Close.vi
Any idea that has received less than 2 kudos within 2 years after posting will be automatically declined.