What is the minimal class to extend for a no copy / no move type?

Question

Let's say I want to create some classes to manage resources that shouldn't be copied nor moved, which would be the minimal class to extend and avoid mistakes?

The idea is that by extending the class, I end on the safe side of the 0/3/5 rules.

I have this in mind, which apparently works.

class NOCOPYNOMOVE {
    NOCOPYNOMOVE(NOCOPYNOMOVE &v) = delete;
    NOCOPYNOMOVE(NOCOPYNOMOVE &&v) = delete;
    NOCOPYNOMOVE& operator=(NOCOPYNOMOVE &r) = delete;
    NOCOPYNOMOVE& operator=(NOCOPYNOMOVE &&r) = delete;
};

class Foo: private NOCOPYNOMOVE {
public:
    Foo() {}
    ~Foo() {}
};

Answer 1

• Don't need to delete move constructor, see https://stackoverflow.com/a/38820178/2945027
• Avoid ALL_CAPS name, as it is conventionally by every convention used for macros
• There's no reason to omit const in copy constructor/assignment, so the usual form should be preferred
• If classes would inherit from some NOCOPYNOMOVE in some namespace, it may trigger unintended ADL. boost::noncopyable solves it by putting the definition in noncopyable_ namespace, see the implementation
• I'd prefer just not having some base, instead spelling out these two or three lines in the target class:

class Foo {
public:
    Foo() {}
    ~Foo() {}

    Foo(const Foo&) = delete;
    Foo& operator=(const Foo&) = delete;
};