I'm sorry I din't read your description carefully enough, the bug you describe is still present in 5.1.

If I'm not misstaken there is a big difference between upvotes on Stack Overflow and likes here in that upvotes actually has a clear functional role and affects how content is sorted and displayed. So on Stack Overflow the community is built upon the up voting mechanism. Whereas in this forum it's unclear (at least for me) if likes here has any community benefits at all besides being a pat at the back for the poster.

Best regards, Otto

Daniel and Otto,

thank you both very much for answering my question.

As an afterthought: As long-time user ot Mathematica I am of course very observant with regard to patterns. I do note that for my last posts regarding WSM (e.g. unit checking, operator records, inheriting annotation for redeclared connectors) not a single post -- including the questions themselves -- I wrote has received any "likes" (the currency of the online society as we know it these days)! ;-)

Certainly, I could have improved upon my questions - I had forgotten to make the example complete in this case but in general I fail to see my questions being "stupid" or "of little interest". This very case has in fact been a report of a very legitimate "issue" with WSM as there should quite clearly have been inheritance. (I do unfortunately note that Wolfram makes great efforts to report about "features" while known issues to my knowledge are never made public (not to say put under the carpet)? A case of "marketing communication asymmetry" ...)

Regarding my questions I observe that the pretty much identical cross-posts on Stack Overflow -- a place not really known for being exorbitantly friendly and uncritical -- received upvotes right away. So, not to receive any upvotes here "within the family" is far from being a very encouraging user experience to be honest.

Best regards, Guido

Daniel and Otto,

thank you both very much for answering my question.

As an afterthought: As long-time user ot Mathematica I am of course very observant with regard to patterns. I do note that for my last posts regarding WSM (e.g. unit checking, operator records, inheriting annotation for redeclared connectors) not a single post -- including the questions themselves -- I wrote has received any "likes" (the currency of the online society as we know it these days)! ;-)

Certainly, I could have improved upon my questions - I had forgotten to make the example complete in this case but in general I fail to see my questions being "stupid" or "of little interest". This very case has in fact been a report of a very legitimate "issue" with WSM as there should quite clearly have been inheritance. (I do unfortunately note that Wolfram makes great efforts to report about "features" while known issues to my knowledge are never made public (not to say put under the carpet)? A case of "Marketing communication asymmetrie ...)

Regarding my questions I observe that the pretty much identical cross-posts on Stack Overflow -- a place not really known for being exorbitantly friendly and uncritical -- received upvotes right away. So, not to receive any upvotes here "within the family" is far from being a very encouraging user experience to be honest.

Best regards, Guido

Another way of increasing the chances of getting an answer is to provide a complete example of the problem. I'm assuming you are meaning something like this:

package ConnectorsTest
  partial model GenericFlow "Flow Template with replaceable ports"
    replaceable FlowPort portA "Flow from/to Stock A" annotation(Placement(visible = true, transformation(origin = {-66.537, 24.02}, extent = {{-10, -10}, {10, 10}}, rotation = 0), iconTransformation(origin = {-100, 0}, extent = {{-10, -10}, {10, 10}}, rotation = 0)));
    replaceable FlowPort portB "Flow to/from Stock B" annotation(Placement(visible = true, transformation(origin = {110, 0}, extent = {{-10, -10}, {10, 10}}, rotation = 0), iconTransformation(origin = {100, -0}, extent = {{-10, -10}, {10, 10}}, rotation = 0)));
  end GenericFlow;

  model Outflow "Outflow from a stock"
    extends GenericFlow(redeclare SpecialFlowPort portA);
  end Outflow;

  connector FlowPort
    annotation(Icon(coordinateSystem(extent = {{-100, -100}, {100, 100}}, preserveAspectRatio = true, initialScale = 0.1, grid = {10, 10}), graphics = {Rectangle(visible = true, origin = {0, 5}, fillColor = {107, 255, 252}, fillPattern = FillPattern.Solid, extent = {{-50, -55}, {50, 55}})}));
  end FlowPort;

  connector SpecialFlowPort
    annotation(Icon(coordinateSystem(extent = {{-100, -100}, {100, 100}}, preserveAspectRatio = true, initialScale = 0.1, grid = {10, 10}), graphics = {Rectangle(visible = true, origin = {0, 5}, fillColor = {246, 114, 123}, fillPattern = FillPattern.Solid, extent = {{-50, -55}, {50, 55}})}));
  end SpecialFlowPort;
end ConnectorsTest;

That should indeed work and it does, at least in WSM 5.1. Perhaps you have an older version? 5.0 contained a lot of improvements regarding replaceable/redeclare.

Otto