>[...]
>>>Hope to hear more from you. The feedback is really minimal so far. I think that's a real pity, because the subject is too important for such ignorance by the community.
>>
>>Well we all have our naming conventions and loads of code. Who'd go through all of that and impose new conventions all over? It surely got more than just a few of us thinking of how to do things next time, but I guess very few are in PeterRR's good luck to have a chance to do a general cleanup.
>>
>>It truly is a conundrum - you can come up with a good naming scheme after having a lot of experience with whatever you were using, but by the time you gain that experience, you have a lot of code already done. Then it's the dilemma of washing or making new.
>
>True, very very true! And I say this out of my own experiences. Having admitted that, I ask you: Have you tried NewClass? I ask this because it might be the case that the method I chose may be more vertile and flexible that you probably presuppose.

I wrote a builder which would do that (not as complete and versatile, though) when I needed it. The general conclusion from that and couple of other builders is that it isn't that hard to do if only the original code to replace (or classes to replace) are done in at least half-consistent manner. If they are all different cases, tough.