remove deleted functions

[neheb]

No description provided.

[ghost]

👇 Click on the image for a new way to code review

• Make big changes easier — review code in small groups of related files

• Know where to start — see the whole change at a glance

• Take a code tour — explore the change with an interactive tour

• Make comments and review — all fully sync’ed with github

  Try it now!

Legend

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2492 (3a8e75d) into main (0d353ac) will decrease coverage by 0.08%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2492      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.12%   62.04%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         121      102      -19     
  Lines       22827    22768      -59     
  Branches    11206    11206              
==========================================
- Hits        14181    14127      -54     
+ Misses       6439     6434       -5     
  Partials     2207     2207              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
app/actions.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
include/exiv2/basicio.hpp	100.00% <ø> (+9.09%)	⬆️
include/exiv2/datasets.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
include/exiv2/image.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
include/exiv2/matroskavideo.hpp	56.25% <ø> (ø)
include/exiv2/pgfimage.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
include/exiv2/tags.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
include/exiv2/types.hpp	82.85% <ø> (ø)
include/exiv2/value.hpp	85.52% <ø> (-0.39%)	⬇️
src/basicio.cpp	51.73% <ø> (+0.06%)	⬆️
... and 8 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[neheb]

git grep =\ delete | grep \(\) | wc -l
7

is extremely suspicious. Anyone have any idea?

[piponazo]

git grep =\ delete | grep \(\) | wc -l
7

is extremely suspicious. Anyone have any idea?

About what? It looks like many of these delete constructors were added by you in the past:
b53ed72

[neheb]

yeah but deleted destructors seem weird. You can't construct something like that. I did such a thing and tested that compilation works. That's about it.

[neheb]

googling indicates these things are basically no op. Removed.

[piponazo]

I think we need to be more careful with these changes. Even in 0.27 we were "not implementing" the copy constructor & assignment in purpose, with the aim of making some classes not copyable. This would be an important API change, and probably we do not want to make such objects copyable anyways.

The deletion of the default destructors looks fine to me though

[neheb]

for all the removals here, the base class has deleted copy constructor and operator= which is inherited by the derived classes. All of them are not copyable unless such a thing is implemented per class.

[piponazo]

Fair enough, I did not notice the Image class already was deleting the copy constructor and operator.

[neheb]

ping @kmilos