I know it is possible that a derived class unique_ptr can take place where base class unique_ptr is required for polymorphic types. For example, wh
The (draft) standard says:
// 20.8.1.2.1, constructors
...
template
unique_ptr(unique_ptr&& u) noexcept;
template
unique_ptr(auto_ptr&& u) noexcept;
Those are constructors from any unique_ptr. The standard further restricts their usage by clauses like this:
24 Remarks: This constructor shall not participate in overload resolution unless
U*is implicitly convertible toT*andDis the same type asdefault_delete
The effect of this remark is that unique_ptr is constructible from unique_ptr precisely U* is convertible to T* (and all deleter requirements are met). In particular, when T is an unambiguous public base class of U.
Since the constructor is not explicit, it serves as an implicit converter from unique_ptr to unique_ptr.