Marcus, thanks for your comment. I'll take this one as a motivation to express my general views on the issue: After eagerly defending the design, I begin realizing that not all the critique is naysayerism ;-). While I still think that the design is quite innovative and partially sound, it has severe inconsistencies: 1. 'mutexed_singleton's need for a generic context (IOW, no type to code against, except for 'lease' having unsuitable semantics), 2. inconsistent semantics of 'lease' classes of 'mutexed_singleton' and 'singleton' (with manually implemented synchronization). ... (several other issues raised during the review) I think that separation of concerns might solve the problems, however, it seems to me that I won't have enough spare time in one piece for it anywhere soon as it essentially means a complete redesign. Therefore, it won't cause me any sorrow if this library gets rejected. In fact, I'd prefer a rejection over acceptance with half-baked design. I think it has been inspiring nevertheless and I'd like to thank all who participated. In particular John Torjo for managing the reviews of my recent submissions. Regards, Tobias