Correct use of `= delete` for methods in classes

Question

Is the following snipplet correct for un-defining all otherwise generated methods and constructors for a class?

struct Picture {

  // \'explicit\': no accidenta         


        

Answer 1

In addition to Xeo's answer:

Yes, everything is correct. If you wanted you could eliminate all of the deleted members but the deleted copy constructor and deleted copy assignment and have the same effect:

struct Picture {  // Also ok

  // 'explicit': no accidental cast from string to Picture
  explicit Picture(const string &filename) { /* load image from file */ }

  // no copy
  Picture(const Picture&) = delete;

  // no assign
  Picture& operator=(const Picture&) = delete;
};

The explicit declaration of the copy constructor inhibits the implicit generation of the default constructor, move constructor and move assignment members. Having these members explicitly deleted is a matter of taste. Some will probably see it as good documentation. Others may see it as overly verbose.

Answer 2

Seems fine to me. The return value of operator= must be a normal reference, even if the object is constructed from a rvalue reference. That is because you can't just compile an lvalue (*this) to an rvalue.
And it should take that rvalue reference per non-const Picture& operator=(Picture&&). How would you move from a constant object? ;)