I'm wondering if there is any interest in a "type_iterator", built on top of the iterator_adaptor. If so I'll send it out. It is a kind of combination of transform_iterator and filter_iterator, where the transform is a cast, and the filter predicate is whether or not each entry in the container passes the cast. This you would want to do when iterating over heterogenous containers (where you are forced to reconstruct type information by downcasting) or containers of boost::any. I was going to call it downcast_iterator but the boost::any stuff isn't a downcast, so I came up with type_iterator. Maybe cast_iterator is better? Generally it looks like this type_iterator<TypeThatIWant, UnderlyingIterator> Here's an example: struct Base { virtual ~Base() {} }; struct Derived : public Base { virtual ~Derived(){}; virtual void OnlyDerivedHasThis(){} }; vector<Base*> v; // love boost::assign v += new Base, new Derived, new Base, ... etc. type_iterator<Derived,vector<Base*>::iterator> iter = make_type_iterator<Derived>(v.begin(), v.end()); while (iter.base() != iter.end()) { (*iter)->OnlyDerivedHasThis(); ++iter; } In order to cooperate with associative containers, containers of shared_ptr's and so forth, the type_iterator maps the type of the underlying iterator (and the cast used) like this: underlying iterator's type_iterator's cast reference_type reference_type ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Base*& Derived*& dynamic_cast<> shared_ptr<Base>& shared_ptr<Derived>& dynamic_pointer_cast<> any& Derived*& any_cast<> pair<T,Base*>& pair<T,Derived*>& dynamic_cast<> pair<T,shared_ptr<Base> >& pair<T,shared_ptr<Derived> >& dynamic_pointer_cast<> pair<T,any>& pair<T,Derived*>& any_cast<> For instance: type_iterator< Derived, std::map<string,shared_ptr<Base> > > iter; *iter <= returns type pair<string,shared_ptr<Derived> >& I'm sure there are things that need changing, (for instance, should the "any" map to Derived* or just Derived? Should it incorporate the behavior of indirect_iterator and do an extra dereference? Dunno.) I'm just wondering if there is interest before I generalize too far beyond what my client needs. DISCLAIMER: it's widely believed that the need to iterate like this (or the need to downcast at all) indicates a lousy inheritance hierarchy and that in these cases the desire to downcast should be removed via improving the base classes. I hope I don't provoke any lectures on the evils of downcasting: this iterator is not intended to substitute for good class design... cheers, troy d. straszheim