From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-12 07:57:45
on Tue Dec 11 2007, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen-AT-dezide.com> wrote:
> David Abrahams skrev:
>> on Sun Dec 09 2007, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen-AT-dezide.com> wrote:
>>> says that erase() does not throw for ordered containers (which is
>>> correct). Anyway, this means any argument used to assume that predicate
>>> evaluation is a no-throw should be the same for unordered containers.
>> No, the ordered containers don't do any predicate evaluation in
> How can you implement
> std::set<T>::erase( const T& )
> then, if you are not going to find the equivalent elements by evaluating
Sorry, I forgot about that one; I was just thinking of
erase(iterator1, iterator2) and erase(iterator)
>>> Why does erase( const_iterator ) (and range version), not provide the
>>> no-throw guarantee?
>> Why should it? Vector/deque erase don't.
> Because it is a node based container.
Yeah, but it might rehash.
>>> Does erase give the strong guarantee otherwise?
>>> Since erase(const Key&) for ordered containers cannot throw, so I guess
>>> it is implicitly required that Pred(x,y) must not throw?
>> Nope, see above.
> Still don't get it.
Hmm, I need to go back and check the draft standard.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk