There's a problem with this approach. There have three options for using smart pointers: Option 3 is out because it requires intimate knowledge of the different ways smart pointers can work and the uses it will be subjected to. The poster is asking what the point of pointers is (haha... *sees pun*) so I think it's safe to assume that neither of these points are met. Option 2 is better, but the lack of any standard implementation of smart pointers (besides auto_ptr) means that generic books can't teach it, libraries can't make good use of it, etc. Probably because of this (and in spite of auto_ptr) I didn't know what smart pointers were until a few days ago despite C++ programming for a couple years. Option 1 is the most promising until you realize that the auto_ptr doesn't behave appropriately in most circumstances. If the stardard library had a painter with reference counting, then things wauld be in much better shape.
