> was wondering whether it is a good idea to delete already present (correct) copy constructors for no obvious reason.

I suppose that the copy constructor was _not_ correct because it was basically just a compiler generated memcpy.

I'm not 100% sure, but the newer c++ standards probably generate a move constructor implicitly, and thus the original object is destroyed without calling its destructor on move operations. GCC 4.4 seemed not to be generating it and I suppose that this is the reason why the move constructor has been added here...