>Argh!!! Is this what Mike was talking about?!? Good grief, that's a >horrid example of a broken interface, imo. We pounded on this, in pre-alpha >discussions with the VB5 dev team, and everyone agreed that the contained >controls should most definitely not expose themselves other than >through properties designed and controlled by the author. This was an >excellent decision, in hind-sight, and one that I think everyone's more than >happy with.

A commandbutton is a bad example in that there is not alot you need to do. But, what about a flexgrid control? If you place that on a usercontrol, and then place that user control on a form, you lose access to the flexgrid - especially the right-click design time menu. Is there a way around this?

I wish I could show you how ActiveX controls, and intrinsic controls can be subclassed in VFP. Its really quite elegant.

I understand your point about not wanting to expose the interface. But I think at design time - you need flexibility. The VFP Control Class has the behavior that is in VB. The container class on the other hand, provides total exposure. For composite classes, it really makes things easier. The need to write lots of code to surface members is obviated.