[setup] Why doesPackageSpecificationhaveaprivatecopy-constructor? (Robert?)

[Max Bowsher]

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 08:12 +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Robert Collins wrote:
>
>>> Have you heard of the 'rule of 3' ?
>>
>> No. Apparently I need to do some reading.
>
> http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/coding-standards.html#faq-27.9
>
> "A class with any of {destructor, assignment operator, copy constructor}
> generally needs all 3"

After that, and further googling, I fully agree with the rule of 3.

However, it appears to me that PackageSpecification needs none of these.

copy-constructor: Was private, now gone.
destructor: Is currently present, but a no-op.
assignment operator: Is present and bizarre...

...in that it only assigns the name, not the operator or version!
This seems like a bug to me - and the only reason we haven't bumped into it 
before, is because we haven't begun to use versioned dependencies.

So, unless there's something I'm not seeing, the destructor and operator= 
can be removed too.

Max.