Does inheriting from boost::noncopyable has the same effect like making the copy c'tor and the assignment operator private without implementing them? The authors of the smart_ptr library suggest the following for the use of the smart pointers with interfaces: class Interface { public: virtual void f() = 0; virtual void g() = 0; protected: ~Interface( void ) {}; // non-virtual } // #1 class Implementation : public Interface { public: void f() { /* Implementation */ } void g() { /* Implementation */ } private: // Not to be implemented Implementation( const Implementation& ); Implementation& operator=( const Implementation& ); } Does inheriting from boost::noncopyable has the same effect: // # 2 class Implementation : public Interface, /*public or private*/ boost::noncopyable { public: void f() { /* Implementation */ } void g() { /* Implementation */ } } 1.) Are #1 and #2 equivalent? 2.) When should I derive public and when private from boost::noncopyable? 3.) Is the use of noncopyable correct in this context and what are other scenarios when to use it? Regards, -Dirk