It is possible to change the order of the types   So that unique_ptr is the template argument instead of notify_ptrs.   In that way it would work with any resource.   It would be an efficient reference-counted abstraction for any object with ownership semantics. Non-threadsafe.   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:JOHN MORRISON via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:So 16.02.2025 18:50 Betreff:Re: [std-proposals] A non-owning but self zeroing smart pointer for single ownership An:std-proposals_at_[hidden]; CC:JOHN MORRISON <inglesflamenco_at_[hidden]>; * Sebastian wrote: I am just thinking, whether the implicitly contained unique_ptr in your solution should/could be made explicit (e.g. as template argument) instead.   If I understand your question, the simple way to make the implicit unique_ptr in notifying_unique_ptr more explicit would be to not use the notifying_unique_ptr using declaration and write what it represents instead. So instead of writing xnr::notifying_unique_ptr<T, D> you would write std::unique_ptr<T, xnr::notify_ptrs<T, D>>. It is more verbose but that also makes it more transparent about what it is. It isn't hard to guess what is going on - a deleter called notify_ptrs. It could also be more reassuring in code reviews to see that trusted std::unique_ptr explicitly visible.     -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals