>So what you are describing is a neo-wrapper, as opposed to a classic wrapper? I see different ways to employ a wrapper as opposed to a fundementally different technique.
>
>FWIW, I am not chastising anybody - MS or you. Rather, I am pointing out that a term is being used incorrectly. As for MS, in the VFP documentation referring to subclassing activex controls, I see nothing wrong with that. The control itself and the container, for all intents and purposes, are the same. Therefore, if you are subclassing the container, you are effectively subclassing the control.

If it waddles like duck, and quacks like a duck... but I suppose we are arguing semantics.

>There are two basic techniques we are discussing here: subclassing and wrappers. Each are very different. Why one would choose to mix-match terms is beyond my comprehension.

Actually, there are probably 3 techniques, and my choice to use subclassing instead (or in addition to) wrapper is probably because the one I proposed matches much more closely subclassing than 'wrapping', and we don't have a term for what I was doing.

> At least the thread now corrects the record...

Yes it does. But I think we disagree on who did the correcting. :-)