What is expected to happen here: { shared_ptr<T> t(something()); shared_ptr<T> t1(std::move(t)); } // t1 destructor called, t destructor called? If t gets its destructor called, then it must obviously be in some self-consistent state. For shared_ptr I think this would mean that upon destruction, it deletes 0. If the move constructor proposal doesn't say anything about being in a minimally destructible state after being moved, I think it should. Unless of course the destructor for t doesn't get called (which would imply some runtime checks - always). -----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org on behalf of Howard Hinnant Sent: Sat 4/14/2007 4:12 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [shared_ptr] dangerous implementation ofmove constructor Fwiw Peter asked me to look at this. Imho after a move from an object it should be in a self-consistent state. All internal invariants should hold. This answer is purposefully vague, and could be used to support either outcome.