On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:
> If I had to use a __DECONST like that, I would almost certainly wrap a
> DECONST() around it that simply provided void * as the type.

Then you don't need __DECONST, do you?  Wouldn't '(void*)' do just as
well?  

--jkl