>Geary,
>
>Without actually going and trying these things, what you say here implies that SOMETHING is wrong with the definition, either of the NODEFAULT command/clause or of INHERITANCE.
>
>It would seem, from the original definition provided (as *I* read it(, that including *anything* in the KeyPress or Refresh method code should result in *only* what I coded being executed. So, if that code does NOT execute what Refresh() does, for instance, then NO Refresh should occur. Same with the KeyPress thingy. After all, if my code does something special for the letter "e", then the existence of the code should, by definition, cause all other letters to be ignored. Yet you say (and I believe you, based on example in docs), that tis is *NOT* the case.
>
>SO. . . there is more to this than meets the eye (definition). I wonder how one can tell what gets inherited EVEN WITH CODE OF OUR OWN and WHAT GETS OVERRIDDEN BECUASE OF CODE OF OUR OWN???
>
>Anybody know?
>
MS could be a big help if they gave nodefault its due and made a separate definition for it that described its uses and functionality more fully...instead of that paltry little bit in define class. Yes?