https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And your remark is good too and will avoid me to spend some time on this idea.
Standard requirements regarding validity of iterators won't let us have
iterators invalidated because
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
--- Comment #6 from Kenton Varda temporal at gmail dot com ---
Yep, I realize that erase_after would need to be added to the standard. I was
just speculating that it may be something the standard committee should
consider.
I've long since solved
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This report entry made me wonder why iterators could not just be pointing to
the node just before the one containing the pointed to value. For instance
begin() iterator would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
--- Comment #4 from Kenton Varda temporal at gmail dot com ---
This report entry made me wonder why iterators could not just be
pointing to the node just before the one containing the pointed to value.
That's a neat idea.
I think there is an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kenton Varda from comment #0)
I do not know exactly what the standard requires here, but all of the
references I can find claim that erase(iter) should be average-time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
--- Comment #2 from Kenton Varda temporal at gmail dot com ---
The standard says average case O(1), worst case O(a.size()), so if every
element in the container has the same key then it's O(n).
I'm not sure that follows. Yes, the standard says
