>>I would disagree. A wrapper is something thats wrapps itself around existing code, not just moving existing code, but actually moving existing code and giving it a new interface (for the developers view) to deal with issues like bugs and confusing, which is easier for the next developer to use (maybe yourself).

Huh? What does the above sentence mean? I didn't just move existing code... I moved it and then wrapped it with a new interface designed to hide complexity.

>>I would think that simply moving some redunant code into a procedure and calling it many times is not a "wrapper".

But wrapping it with a new simpler interface to a now-encapsulated component ontaining "existing code" does, IMHO, fit the definition I originally gave. My first message in reply to the original question also mentioned specifically a wrapper around WINAPI calls and a subclassed ActiveX control (with added methods to work around difficulties) as examples of wrappers. In all the above cases, the interaction with each of the items is simplified and complexity is hidden ... thus I consider them all wrappers.

Maybe we should move on now to "warper" classes <g>.