Proposed resolution:

Add after [unique.ptr.dltr.dflt], p1:

template <class U> default_delete(const default_delete<U>& other);

-1- Effects: ...

Remarks: This constructor shall participate in overload resolution if and only if U* is implicitly convertible to T*.

[ 2009-10 Santa Cruz: ]

Move to Ready.

[ 2009-07-26 Howard provided rewritten proposed wording and moved to Review. ]

[ 2009-07 Frankfurt: ]

The proposed resolution uses concepts. Howard needs to rewrite the proposed resolution.

Move back to Open.

[ Batavia (2009-05): ]

Keep in Review status for the reasons cited.

[ Post Summit: ]

Alisdair: This issue has to stay in review pending a paper constraining unique_ptr.

Consensus: We agree with the resolution, but unique_ptr needs to be constrained, too.

Recommend Keep in Review.

[ Howard adds 2008-11-26: ]

I believe we need to be careful to not outlaw the following use case, and I believe the current proposed wording (requires Convertible<U*, T*> && HasVirtualDestructor<T>) does so:

#include <memory>

int main()
{
    std::unique_ptr<int> p1(new int(1));
    std::unique_ptr<const int> p2(move(p1));
    int i = *p2;
//    *p2 = i;  // should not compile
}

I've removed "&& HasVirtualDestructor<T>" from the requires clause in the proposed wording.

No relationship between U and T in the converting constructor for default_delete template.

Requirements: U* is convertible to T* and has_virtual_destructor<T>; the latter should also become a concept.

Rules out cross-casting.

The requirements for unique_ptr conversions should be the same as those on the deleter.