On 2008-04-18 at 17:48:52 [+0200], Michael Lotz <mmlr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > As you see there are ways to get these situations corrected. But as > should be obvious from the first example of the FindPointer() method, > we will have lots of these cases. And I am not yet convinced that I > really like to do that kind of workaround in such common code. Agreed. I'm in favor for adding a templatized version of FindPointer() instead, which should make it very easy to fix those instances. CU, Ingo