Hi John --

>>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?<<

Two words: "Good design."

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

The entire point of implementing a usercontrol is to wrap up functionality and make it easier and/or more powerful to use. If the UC's you've used don't do this, then their author's failed. There should be no need to subclass a contained control other than poor design from the get-go.

>>I understand your point about not wanting to expose the interface. But I think at design time - you need flexibility.<<

I personally abhor design-time, and consider it somewhat the mark of an amatuer to rely on setting properties at that point. That's just my opinion, but that's how I see it.

>>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.<<

The "need to surface members" is what requires examination. If it is indeed required, there's a wizard in VB to help. Code is what lends control to the author. Without the "need to write code" we sacrifice everything to the design-gods in Redmond. That's a horrifying thought indeed!

Later... Karl