I wonder if it might be better/possible to have a shared_ptr<T> that didn't assume its corresponding "raw" pointer type was T* but rather T.
If I'm not mistaken, the C++0x committee is setting the 'shared_ptr<>' class in stone as we speak. I seriously doubt that can be changed this late in the game, considering the amount of code that is already using this class as-is. See if this type of code works for you: #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> using boost::shared_ptr; struct mutex { void lock() {} void unlock() {} }; template< typename T > class monitor; template< typename T > class locker { mutex & mutex_; monitor< T > * monitor_; public: locker( monitor< T > * mt, mutex & mx ) : mutex_( mx ), monitor_( mt ) { mutex_.lock(); } ~locker() { mutex_.unlock(); } monitor< T > * operator->() { return monitor_; } }; template< typename T > class monitor { mutex mutex_; public: shared_ptr< T > obj_ptr; monitor( T * t ) : obj_ptr( shared_ptr< T >( t ) ) { } locker< T > operator->() { return locker< T >( this, mutex_ ); } }; int main( int argc, char * argv[] ) { char * buf = new char[ 3 ]; memset( buf, 0, 3 ); monitor< char > m( buf ); *m->obj_ptr = 'A'; return 0; }