Jim -

Well, I may be thinking this to death when my inclination is to 'just do it', but that's the kind of rogue Foxpro behavior I was trying to get over:) Anyway, I hope your hopes with VFP 6 are right (I sort of feel the fact that something like Supercls was needed [and much appreciated] means there's a problem).

Sylvia

>Sylvia,
>
>This is one of two problems which I harbour hopes may be addressed in *some* way in VFP6.
>
>The other biggie for me is the fact that one must code differently depending on Row/Table buffering, local/remote views. I understand that one can come close by coding table buffering to process only one record at a time, but that kind of defeats the basic purpose of it.
>
>As we have seen (and I guess its a good sign, though bothersome as h*ll), those who might be in the know are mightily tight-lipped about ANYTHING to do with VFP 6. Fortunately its not too many days till DEVCON, when rumours can fly like crazy.
>
>Who knows. . . one can only hope.
>
>Cheers,
>Jim N
>
>>>>I found some command buttons I thought were useful and saved them in one of my class libraries. Now I find some of the custom properties make assumptions about where these and other buttons are on the form (e.g. refer to Thisform.cmdenterquery) which is, of course, not where I've put the command buttons in this situation (I have them on a page). My philosophical question is: should I just go ahead and put in my own code to replace the default code (which seems to defeat the purpose of less coding, or do I say "Hmmm, I should make another class of buttons for situations where I have the buttons in the page rather than on the form itself."
>>>>
>>>>This seems to be like an issue of standards (e.g. keep button on form) vs. adaptability (I need them on the page this time). How do you decide "Yep, this is a class", or "Nope, this should be a custom or modification of existing method."?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>Sylvia
>>>
>>>Hmmm...
>>>
>>>Personally I try to keep things very generic in situations like that. Like using This.Parent instead of ThisForm. In some cases you may not know what the owner is. This too will not work all of the time. Just drop a command button on a container on a form and This.Parent will reference the container not the form.
>>>
>>>If the buttons only interact with each other you should be able to keep the references pretty generic.
>>>
>>>I don't think that it is a question of standards more so that your own design methods and preferences.
>>>
>>>My .02 worth.
>>
>>...and worth it;) But in this particular case had the code included This.parent I'd still be facing the same issue, since the parent would be the page frame itself.