This would make sense as a button to trigger the one-time edit. I don't see how it would make sense as a checkbox. Having a VI magically change its reentrancy when dropped on some other VI's diagram would kind of defeat the purpose of having a non-reentrant subVI.
Also, can we say "force all except the VIs in vi.lib and in user.lib"? Published libraries and the built in parts of LabVIEW shouldn't be edited blindly.
There is a larger point here -- you're forcing an entire hierarchy to be reentrant. That's generally not a good practice in the desktop environment. Just because a VI is non-reentrant does not mean it is a performance bottleneck in your code. The parallel code that is calling that subroutine may never hit up against itself, and if you aren't seeing that as a hotspot, your overall memory usage (and therefore the amount of time you spend paging stuff in and out of memory) is better if you minimize your use of reentrancy. I believe FPGA takes care of making everything reentrant when you compile anyway, and I think that RT you only want full reentrancy everywhere within your deterministic loop ... otherwise, I believe RT follows the same admonition about reentrancy as the desktop. So that gives me pause about adding a button to blindly make it all reentrant. The ease of doing that belies the conscious thought about which subVIs to make reentrant and which to not bother with.
Any idea that has not received any kudos within a year after posting will be automatically declined.