------- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-08-12 14:37 ------- > It's Joaquín :-) You're welcome.
Sorry. I don't know what I was thinking. > Perfect, let's do that. Regarding #579, last I heard from my contact > in the committee is that the issue has been finally dismissed > and the standard will have an iterator-returning erase(const_iterator). > That seems to imply that there exist singly linked lists implementations > capable of circumventing the problem, but I haven't seen one yet. > Do you have more info (maybe directly from the committee) on this? Yes, I attended the Rapperswil meeting, but wasn't in the room. Anyway, from the minutes I understand that people spent only a few minutes on this issue. Pablo Halpern and Howard Hinnant reported that their prototype implementations worked well, nobody said anything special about memory use and the discussion quickly ended with a pool: 12 votes strongly in favor of iterator, 1 weakly in favor, only 1 weakly against. Let's keep in touch off-Bugzilla about the details. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44480
