[c++] Meaning of = delete after function declaration

class my_class
{
    ...
    my_class(my_class const &) = delete;
    ...
};

What does = delete mean in that context?

Are there any other "modifiers" (other than = 0 and = delete)?

1. = 0 means that a function is pure virtual and you cannot instantiate an object from this class. You need to derive from it and implement this method
2. = delete means that the compiler will not generate those constructors for you. AFAIK this is only allowed on copy constructor and assignment operator. But I am not too good at the upcoming standard.

Are there any other "modifiers" (other than = 0 and = delete)?

Since it appears no one else answered this question, I should mention that there is also =default.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/explicitly-defaulted-and-deleted-functions#explicitly-defaulted-functions

This is new thing in C++ 0x standards where you can delete an inherited function.

New C++0x standard. Please see section 8.4.3 in the N3242 working draft

A deleted function is implicitly inline

(Addendum to existing answers)

... And a deleted function shall be the first declaration of the function (except for deleting explicit specializations of function templates - deletion should be at the first declaration of the specialization), meaning you cannot declare a function and later delete it, say, at its definition local to a translation unit.

Citing [dcl.fct.def.delete]/4:

A deleted function is implicitly inline. ( Note: The one-definition rule ([basic.def.odr]) applies to deleted definitions. — end note ] A deleted definition of a function shall be the first declaration of the function or, for an explicit specialization of a function template, the first declaration of that specialization. [ Example:

struct sometype {
  sometype();
};
sometype::sometype() = delete;      // ill-formed; not first declaration

— end example )

A primary function template with a deleted definition can be specialized

Albeit a general rule of thumb is to avoid specializing function templates as specializations do not participate in the first step of overload resolution, there are arguable some contexts where it can be useful. E.g. when using a non-overloaded primary function template with no definition to match all types which one would not like implicitly converted to an otherwise matching-by-conversion overload; i.e., to implicitly remove a number of implicit-conversion matches by only implementing exact type matches in the explicit specialization of the non-defined, non-overloaded primary function template.

Before the deleted function concept of C++11, one could do this by simply omitting the definition of the primary function template, but this gave obscure undefined reference errors that arguably gave no semantic intent whatsoever from the author of primary function template (intentionally omitted?). If we instead explicitly delete the primary function template, the error messages in case no suitable explicit specialization is found becomes much nicer, and also shows that the omission/deletion of the primary function template's definition was intentional.

#include <iostream>
#include <string>

template< typename T >
void use_only_explicit_specializations(T t);

template<>
void use_only_explicit_specializations<int>(int t) {
    std::cout << "int: " << t;
}

int main()
{
    const int num = 42;
    const std::string str = "foo";
    use_only_explicit_specializations(num);  // int: 42
    //use_only_explicit_specializations(str); // undefined reference to `void use_only_explicit_specializations< ...
}

However, instead of simply omitting a definition for the primary function template above, yielding an obscure undefined reference error when no explicit specialization matches, the primary template definition can be deleted:

#include <iostream>
#include <string>

template< typename T >
void use_only_explicit_specializations(T t) = delete;

template<>
void use_only_explicit_specializations<int>(int t) {
    std::cout << "int: " << t;
}

int main()
{
    const int num = 42;
    const std::string str = "foo";
    use_only_explicit_specializations(num);  // int: 42
    use_only_explicit_specializations(str);
    /* error: call to deleted function 'use_only_explicit_specializations' 
       note: candidate function [with T = std::__1::basic_string<char>] has 
       been explicitly deleted
       void use_only_explicit_specializations(T t) = delete; */
}

Yielding a more more readable error message, where the deletion intent is also clearly visible (where an undefined reference error could lead to the developer thinking this an unthoughtful mistake).

Returning to why would we ever want to use this technique? Again, explicit specializations could be useful to implicitly remove implicit conversions.

#include <cstdint>
#include <iostream>

void warning_at_best(int8_t num) { 
    std::cout << "I better use -Werror and -pedantic... " << +num << "\n";
}

template< typename T >
void only_for_signed(T t) = delete;

template<>
void only_for_signed<int8_t>(int8_t t) {
    std::cout << "UB safe! 1 byte, " << +t << "\n";
}

template<>
void only_for_signed<int16_t>(int16_t t) {
    std::cout << "UB safe! 2 bytes, " << +t << "\n";
}

int main()
{
    const int8_t a = 42;
    const uint8_t b = 255U;
    const int16_t c = 255;
    const float d = 200.F;

    warning_at_best(a); // 42
    warning_at_best(b); // implementation-defined behaviour, no diagnostic required
    warning_at_best(c); // narrowing, -Wconstant-conversion warning
    warning_at_best(d); // undefined behaviour!

    only_for_signed(a);
    only_for_signed(c);

    //only_for_signed(b);  
    /* error: call to deleted function 'only_for_signed' 
       note: candidate function [with T = unsigned char] 
             has been explicitly deleted
       void only_for_signed(T t) = delete; */

    //only_for_signed(d);
    /* error: call to deleted function 'only_for_signed' 
       note: candidate function [with T = float] 
             has been explicitly deleted
       void only_for_signed(T t) = delete; */
}

The coding standards I've worked with have had the following for most of class declarations.

//  coding standard: disallow when not used
T(void)                  = delete; // default ctor    (1)
~T(void)                 = delete; // default dtor    (2)
T(const T&)              = delete; // copy ctor       (3)
T(const T&&)             = delete; // move ctor       (4)
T& operator= (const T&)  = delete; // copy assignment (5)
T& operator= (const T&&) = delete; // move assignment (6)

If you use any of these 6, you simply comment out the corresponding line.

Example: class FizzBus require only dtor, and thus do not use the other 5.

//  coding standard: disallow when not used
FizzBuzz(void)                         = delete; // default ctor (1)
// ~FizzBuzz(void);                              // dtor         (2)
FizzBuzz(const FizzBuzz&)              = delete; // copy ctor    (3)
FizzBuzz& operator= (const FizzBuzz&)  = delete; // copy assig   (4)
FizzBuzz(const FizzBuzz&&)             = delete; // move ctor    (5)
FizzBuzz& operator= (const FizzBuzz&&) = delete; // move assign  (6)

We comment out only 1 here, and install the implementation of it else where (probably where the coding standard suggests). The other 5 (of 6) are disallowed with delete.

You can also use '= delete' to disallow implicit promotions of different sized values ... example

// disallow implicit promotions 
template <class T> operator T(void)              = delete;
template <class T> Vuint64& operator=  (const T) = delete;
template <class T> Vuint64& operator|= (const T) = delete;
template <class T> Vuint64& operator&= (const T) = delete;

= delete is a feature introduce in C++11. As per =delete it will not allowed to call that function.

In detail.

Suppose in a class.

Class ABC{
 Int d;
 Public:
  ABC& operator= (const ABC& obj) =delete
  {

  }
};

While calling this function for obj assignment it will not allowed. Means assignment operator is going to restrict to copy from one object to another.

This excerpt from The C++ Programming Language [4th Edition] - Bjarne Stroustrup book talks about the real purpose behind using =delete:

3.3.4 Suppressing Operations

Using the default copy or move for a class in a hierarchy is typically a disaster: given only a pointer to a base, we simply don’t know what members the derived class has, so we can’t know how to copy them. So, the best thing to do is usually to delete the default copy and move operations, that is, to eliminate the default definitions of those two operations:

class Shape {
public:
  Shape(const Shape&) =delete; // no copy operations
  Shape& operator=(const Shape&) =delete;

  Shape(Shape&&) =delete; // no move operations
  Shape& operator=(Shape&&) =delete;
  ˜Shape();
    // ...
};

Now an attempt to copy a Shape will be caught by the compiler.

The =delete mechanism is general, that is, it can be used to suppress any operation