Re: [boost] [unordered] unordered_set::erase() complexity bug?

Subject: Re: [boost] [unordered] unordered_set::erase() complexity bug?
From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-29 11:01:54

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:48 PM, John Zwinck <jzwinck_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> OvermindDL1 wrote:
>>
>> Instead of making a new function name, why not a function overload:
>>
>> iterator erase(iterator it); // original
>> void erase(iterator it, no_return); // no_return is an empty global
>> created struct so you can just call m.erase(it, no_return);
>
> Is "m.erase(it, no_return)" better than "m.erase_no_return(it)"?
>
> Is there a precedent (in C++, not Boost) for this, other than the
> (IMO confusing) pre- vs. post-increment operator declarations?
>

operator new(std::nothrow_t)

-- 
gpd