[Bug libstdc++/41975] [C++0x] [DR579] unordered_set::erase performs worse when nearly empty

[jzwinck at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #21 from jzwinck at gmail dot com  2010-03-09 19:55 -------
(In reply to comment #18)
> Because would be non-conforming. In case my previous message was not clear
> enough, in C++1x erase will return *iterator*.
The Boost approach is still an option for GCC: let the standards mandate a
suboptimal interface if they must, but provide an alternative (the one Boost
calls "erase_return_void").  From where I sit at least, it doesn't seem
infeasible for GCC to go a little bit beyond the standard in this case (again,
as Boost have already elected to do).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41975