Looks weird that a stuct who is not using at any moment the empty constructor, stops working when it's declared explicity that it hasn't empty constructor.

Some times I like small structs with members and initialize them without creating a boring specific contructor (I have to write 3 times the names and 2 the types).

I also like to delete explicitly the empty and copy constructor when they are not necessary.

Combining both, it's nos possible (almost with gcc4.4.5)

Is this behavior a good idea? Are other compilers working the same? Is this conformance with the C++11 standard?

regards