Stephen,

You're correct about OOP. As a word of defense I can say only that it was not implemented before I started to add my stuff. Therefore now I have a dilemma:
Create this base btcc_class after all or keep it as it is now...



>>
>>Ok, let's me describe my problem (honestly, I already did this manually, but just wondering, if it would be helpful in the future)
>>
>>My coleague introduced several classes in his app. I was assigned to make some changes (add more controls on the pages). He introduced btcc_multilist, btcc_valrange as two base classes and several subclasses of them. Then I defined 3 new classes: btcc_text, btcc_check and btcc_options. All these new classes should have btc_whereexp, btc_statesave methods and btcmaparray[4] property. So, I wanted to copy these methods with their descriptions into my new classes and just modified the code. Unfortunately, there no tools for this, so I used copy and paste technique lots of times.
>>
>>What's why I ask my question.
>>
>>Right now I think that I could copy his classes under another name (since all classes based on a container), and then modified them. But in the time I was creating them I didn't think about it.
>>
>
>Why not put them in the parrent class that was used for btcc_***.
>
>This is OOP where you base off of a parent. when all the "kids" need something you add to the parent and poof it's available to all. Wouldn't that be great in real life. I give them a $20 and it replicates to all their hands!
>
>__Stephen