CD> Whatever tool is issuing the warning is doing an excellent job of
 CD> helping you.  But the message kind of stinks.  I would prefer 
 CD> something more along the lines of "soon to be out of scope address
 CD> being returned".  But a misleading warning is still better than no
 CD> warning at all!
 PL> Is it ? 
 
 An unqualified YES comes from me.
 
 PL> There is nothing suspicious about the conversion per se.
 PL> The error message and the error are unrelated, 
 
 There's nothing unusual there.  Plain old syntax errors can often cause 
 the same thing.  One of the skills required of C programmers is the
 ability to decipher meaningless error messages.
 
 PL> so the novice may think
 PL> that this is something to do with some guru corner of the ANSI
 PL> standard, not with normal everyday programming. So he ignores the
 PL> warning. 
 Then he gets what he deserves.  One should _never_ "ignore warnings".
 Each and every one should be investigated to see whether it is 
 harmless or not.  That's one reason why writing warningless source
 code is, IMHO, a "good thing".  It may not matter to the original
 author/user of the code, but the next dude who modifies the code
 is going to get those same %&!@* warnings and is going to have to
 spend time also confirming their harmlessnes.
---
 þ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 þ
---------------