[Patch] libstdc++/20787 (DR 130)

[Paolo Carlini]

Hi,

a few days ago I noticed that the relevant DR in the meanwhile has been
moved to [DR] status and decided to reconsider implementing its
resolution. Indeed, apparently there is a very large consensus (see also
Effective STL, outside the LWG references proper, f.i.) that changing
the associative containers consistently with all the other containers is
a good thing. The only minor disadvantage seems that a single
erase(iterator) becomes computationally a little more expensive, due to
the additional iterator increment (however, this is not the case for
erase(iterator, iterator), because its internal loop can now make use of
the erase(iterator) return value, i.e., the very same idiom used in
list::erase).

Anyone disagreeing with adding the below to mainline?!?

Tested x86-linux.

Paolo.

//////////////////
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: CL_20787
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/attachments/20050902/c4f83e26/attachment.ksh>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: patch_20787
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/attachments/20050902/c4f83e26/attachment-0001.ksh>