File lacks a copy constructor

[svatoun]

Context: I am trying to hunt a bug, similar to #11 - working with older Arduino IDE, I know ;) but going deseperately through SD library's code I found cause for many subtle bugs.

Consider code like this:

void doSomething(File f) {
   // does something nice.
   f.close();
}

void func() {
   File myFile = ....; // obtain a file somehow
   doSomething(myFile);
   myFile.close();
}

On "normal" File, close() is idempotent (as expected), so doing close() multiple times is OK and 2nd+ calls do nothing. There seems to be no copy constructor in File, so when passing by-value to doSomething, the compiler generates (!) one that copies the fields - that is the _file pointer becomes shared between myFile and f locals.

First close will deallocate the (shared) _file pointer and zeroes the pts. The 2nd close will deallocate the same pointer value again.

This reduced example may seem bad, as the programmer should not do permature close - but lack of the copy/destroy semantics severely limits structuring the code since passing File values around easily leads to memory corruption. At this time, the only value safe to assign to other variables is File().

I would also recommmend to reconsider the decision for #2; while it is true, that the current implementation is simple, it requires extreme caution when passing around File variables. I'd recommend to have full copy+move constructor semantics.

If unwanted, I'd recommend to disallow generation by the compiler, so the user is warned:
File(const File&) = delete;

• https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/copy_constructor
• https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/move_constructor

[thekunalsaini]

Consider this Code:

Class name(argument) { File f = value ; // intialized value according to requirement };
Copy constructor is to made in class then ,we easily pass by value.

[drewfish]

Could your function use a reference instead? void doSomething(File &f)