Btw, I neglected to include Ion's suggestion:
If we can define the pointer type via deleter::pointer or similar (with default T*) that would be even better.
which I think is a good one. Update on the way...
Can we add that also for unique_ptr Reference Implementation? http://home.twcny.rr.com/hinnant/cpp_extensions/unique_ptr.html Other smart pointers can benefit from a templatized pointer type also, like intrusive_ptr: template<class T, class VoidPointer = void *> class intrusive_ptr; See: http://ice.prohosting.com/newfunk/boost/libs/shmem/doc/html/shmem/shmem_smar... With Boost 1.34 boost::pointer_to_other<> and generalized get_pointer() utilities intrusive pointer could support different pointer types. I'm also seeing if a shared memory/memory mapped file shared_ptr<> is possible using templatized pointers, but the lack of polymorphic operations in shared memory would require an additional deleter template parameter and an additional allocator template parameter to allocate the reference count. Too much? With so many smart pointers, I'm certainly confused. What's the difference between unique_ptr: http://home.twcny.rr.com/hinnant/cpp_extensions/unique_ptr.html and move_ptr: http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1377.htm#move_ptr%20Exa... Do we need scoped_ptr in future C++ standard if unique_ptr has all needed operations? Or it's too dangerous for a scoped resource pattern because of the release() operation? Ion