Delete operator=(Self&) when copy constructor is deleted #8535
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
d-a-v
approved these changes
Apr 9, 2022
hasenradball
pushed a commit
to hasenradball/Arduino
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #8534
This brings two questions tho, should we break backwards compatibility with a usage that is literally broken, so nobody should be actually depending on this? As these changes technically make some broken code to stop compiling. I'm out of the loop on how the community decides on situations like this.
And what is with the fake
WiFiClientSecureCtx::clone? With my changes it actually always fails to compile, so I moved to causing a runtime failure that will be more explicit. What do you all think? I am open to suggestions.I see that there is a different PR tackling a similar issue (targeting the original issue), and it might expand the functionalities, but I see this as orthogonal, if we decide to support copy operations in some of those classes in the future we can remove the two deletes, but it doesn't seem a decided issue.