Question

Why do people define a private copy constructor?

When is making the copy constructor and the assignment operator private a good design?

If there are no members in the class which are pointers or handles to a unique object (like file name), then wat other cases are there where private copy constructor is a good idea?

Same question apply for assignment operator. Given that majority of C++ revolves around copying of objects and passing by reference, are there any good designs which involve private copy constructor?

Answer 1

Some objects represent particular entities that can’t or shouldn’t be copied. For example, you may prevent copying of an object that represents the log file used by an application, corresponding to the expectation that a single log file will be used by all parts of the code. Use of an accidentally or inappropriately copied object could lead to out-of-order content appearing in the log, inaccurate records of current log size, multiple attempts (some failing) to “roll” to a new log filename or rename the existing one.

Another use is to enforce copying via a virtual function. As constructors can’t be virtual, a common practice is to prevent direct access to the copy constructor and provide a virtual Base* clone() method that returns a copy of the actual run-time type to which a pointer points. This prevents the accidental slicing that Base b(derived) would exhibit.

Another example: a dead-simple smart pointer object that simply deletes the pointer it’s given in the constructor: if it doesn’t support reference counting or some other manner of handling multiple owners, and doesn’t want to have risk awkward unintended std::auto_ptr style transfer of ownership, then simply hiding the copy constructor gives a great little smart pointer that’s fast and efficient for the limited cases where it’s usable. A compile time error about attempting to copy it would effectively ask the programmer “hey – if you really want to do that change me to a shared pointer, otherwise back off!”.