I didn’t think the Java implementation is that nice though, it’s just normal. Actually, I’m pretty sure someone can produce an even nicer code than this.

Like the Java implementation, very neat.

Thanks!

P.S. Sorry for the late reply, was extremely busy with work and research to check on the block.

vector list2 = list; // Copy-on-assign

This is not correct. The compiler will treat this line the same way as the first line and use the copy constructor (try it out yourself!). If you want to use the assignment operator you have to split up the declaration and the initialization in two lines.
Here is a small test program:

#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib>

class Test {
private:
	std::string name;
public:
	Test(std::string name) {
		this->name = name;
		std::cout << name << ".Test()" << std::endl;
	}

	Test(const Test& t) {
		name = t.name;
		std::cout << name << ".Test(const Test& t)" << std::endl;
	}

	Test& operator=(const Test& t) {
		name = t.name;
		std::cout << name << ".operator=(const Test& t)" << std::endl;
		return *this;
	}

	~Test() {
		std::cout << name << ".~Test()" << std::endl;
	}
};

int main(int argc, char** argv) {
	Test test1("test1");
	Test t2(test1);
	Test t3 = test1;
	t2 = t3;
	return 0;
}

It’s a quite strange exceptional rule in C++ and I was quite surprised reading it a few days ago.