UML25 — Inheriting Connectors

If parts are redefined in a subclass, should connectors of original redefined parts be inherited? Or lost/hidden/redefined too as original part does not exist in a subclass anymore, so why connectors should?

If inherited, how should they be represented? If inherited connector is shown attached to a new redefining part, it may look ambiguous as it is NOT attached to it in the model.

See diagram attached

There are two aspects to this issue. Firstly, it needs to be made clearer that redefinition causes the redefining
feature to stand in for the redefined feature in all uses of the redefined feature, including referring to it. This
applies in many circumstances including connectors, transitions and activity edges. Secondly, there needs
to be a well-defined notation for inherited features (such as connectors) so that a diagram can depict an
inherited connector connecting to a redefined part.
In the case of provided interfaces there is already a notation using a forward slash. This seems ill-advised
since forward slash normally means derived. Change this notation to be the caret, and make the forward
slash a deprecated option.