>
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.
>

So now you agree that what you were doing is not subclassing since you have just said there is not a term for what you were doing.

I don't entirely agree with that. I think what you implemented was a wrapper. It most certainly was not a subclass as you claimed. In fact, from an internal standpoint, it did not resemble subclassing.


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

Hey, I persuaded you to move from calling what you did subclassing to admiting that no term exists for what you were doing. FWIW, just suffice it to say that you created a wrapper.