>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...
>
>
>


Ouch! Sounds like a violation of rule #1. Amke a base class, and go from there. Sounds like you have 3 base classes?

I would do it all over again, make that base, then make those children! From now on you are doing it right. Otherwise your long term potential for screw up is great. Make a change to one class that has to be done to many different classes.

__Stephen



>>>
>>>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