>>And, now for the official definition *bg*:
>>wrapper n. any object or set of objects that provides an object-oriented interface to nonobject-oriented software.
>
>Does anyone else think this is limiting to wrappers? Why couldn't procedural code "wrap" other procedural code? Or a PRG wrap an object, or an object wrap and object. Maybe the definition should be about "wrapper classes" or "wrapper objects". Or are wrappers only: Objects around Non-Objects?

Mike,

Seems to me that procedure files (ie SET PROC TO..) are just this. Aren't subroutines 'wrapped' by their calling programs? I know that's kind of stretching it but it seems to me that a lot of what people call object oriented is just another way of saying "Good Programming Style" *g*

A lot of we seem to be doing is just maing things more discreet. Goodness, you could 'wrap' a prg in FoxBase 1.0 if by that you mean "translate between The Calling Program and The Called Program".

I dunno... Maybe my mind's just becoming mush.. *bg*

Best,

DD