How is that different from clone_ptr and other similar works?
surrogate does not attempts to emulate a concrete type via pointer interface. Instead, It act as drop in replacement for value type This is the main idea behind surrogate pattern. Typically, this is achieve through surrogate<T>::operator T&(). This also implies that most STL function objects can work with std::vector<boost::surrogate<T>>. Besides, It encapsulate object allocation inside itself. In my humble opinion, this feel like less error prone. boost::clone_ptr, on the other hand, emulate a concrete type via pointer interface. This implies that most STL function objects is incompatible to std::vector<boost::clone_ptr<T>>. This also apply to ordinary pointer type, boost::shared_ptr and other similar. Surrogate also differ from value_ptr by Edd Dawson. Surrogate does not need object to have virtual copy function. I have reviewed Boost.ClonePtr by Rafal Moniuszko, it seems to me pointed objects get sliced during copy construction. Could you please confirm this? In many ways, surrogate is similar to boost::clone_ptr. similar to std::stack adapt std::vector. It is possible to adapt boost::clone_ptr to surrogate or vice-versa However, their both serve different purpose as std::stack is to std::vector.