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*
andD
is 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
.