UNCOPYABLE vs. uncopyable

[rolandreichweinbmw]

As I understand, the Macro UNCOPYABLE is included in estd's uncopyable.h for historical reasons?

Instead, the base class estd::uncopyable can be used instead consequently, since using C++ means is mostly better than preprocessor means.

[vladyslavmarkovaccenture]

As I understand, the Macro UNCOPYABLE is included in estd's uncopyable.h for historical reasons?

Exactly. The UNCOPYABLE macro will be removed in the future as it is deprecated.

Instead, the base class estd::uncopyable can be used instead consequently, since using C++ means is mostly better than preprocessor means.

The current preferred way to make a class non-copyable is to declare the copy constructor and copy assignment operator as = deleted under the public: access specifier (see C++ core guidelines: C.81).

A less preferred, more Boost-like approach is private inheritance from estd::uncopyable, as it:

• Clutters the class hierarchy
• Creates inconsistency in class interface definitions when applying the Rule of Five