JK>  BP> What the heck is a (virtual char *) ?
JK> What part don't you get?
The "virtual" part.  I'm familiar with two definitions for virtual.
Applied to a class member function, it indicates that the function will
be over-ridden by a function in a derived class.  Applied to a class, it
prevents multiple inclusions of a base class in a derived class.
Neither definition seems to make much sense applied to a pointer to
char.
OTOH, a _volatile_ pointer to char makes a bit more sense. 
Regards,
Daniel              ddjones@pinn.net
---
 þ RM 1.31 1604 þ Monday is a hard way to spend 1/7th of your life.
---------------