Correct use of `= delete` for methods in classes

Question

Is the following snipplet correct for un-defining all otherwise generated methods and constructors for a class?

struct Picture {

  // 'explicit': no accidental cast from string to Picture
  explicit Picture(const string &filename) { /* load image from file */ }

  // no accidental construction, i.e. temporaries and the like
  Picture() = delete;

  // no copy
  Picture(const Picture&) = delete;

  // no assign
  Picture& operator=(const Picture&) = delete;

  // no move
  Picture(Picture&&) = delete;

  // no move-assign
  Picture& operator=(Picture&&) = delete; // return type correct?
};

This deletes every default compiler implementation and only leaves the destructor, right? Without it the class would be (almost) unusable I guess, but I could delete it as well, correct?

Is the return type Picture& of the move-assign operator=(Picture&&) correct? Does it make a difference if I wrote Picture&& for the return type?

Answer 1

In addition to Xeo's answer:

Yes, everything is correct. If you wanted you could eliminate all of the deleted members but the deleted copy constructor and deleted copy assignment and have the same effect:

struct Picture {  // Also ok

  // 'explicit': no accidental cast from string to Picture
  explicit Picture(const string &filename) { /* load image from file */ }

  // no copy
  Picture(const Picture&) = delete;

  // no assign
  Picture& operator=(const Picture&) = delete;
};

The explicit declaration of the copy constructor inhibits the implicit generation of the default constructor, move constructor and move assignment members. Having these members explicitly deleted is a matter of taste. Some will probably see it as good documentation. Others may see it as overly verbose.