>>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?

Well, considering that I often write non-OO wrappers of various sorts, for example, a .DLL to provide a VFP compatible interface to API functions that use C++ style calling conventions, and procedural wrappers used to give access to COM functionality where no native COM support exists, it's probably a better definition to say that it's something that encapsulates some other functionality...