Re: Weird behaviour from std::list<>::reverse_iterator
On Aug 25, 4:13 pm, Pete Becker <p...@versatilecoding.com> wrote:
Rune Allnor wrote:
[...]
So from a semantic point of view, the obvious thing to
try is
std::list<T> list;
std::list<T>::reverse_iterator i = ...;
list.erase(i);
and then expect the item referenced by i to be erased.
Isn't that the philosophy behind the STL? That users
should only worry about semantics and not need to know
about implementation details?
The problem with that, of course, is that list::erase doesn't
take a reverse_iterator, so that code doesn't compile. You'd
have the same problem if you tried to use any other iterator
type (except list::iterator and list::const_iterator) here.
And that's a legitimate complaint.
Just wondering... Is it too late to do something about this for
the next release of the standard. It doesn't look like it would
require a lot of work. (But note that I'm not volenteering, at
least not in the immediate future. Between moving, changing
jobs and countries, and getting my web site back up, I've more
than enough to do at the moment.)
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34