http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47628
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
| |com
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-02-07
17:49:33 UTC ---
Boring. Time ago I removed the other erase overloads for C++98, because it
seemed redundant. Now, I'm thinking, instead of readding it, with all the
stupid reduncancy, can't we just have a single overload taking a const_iterator
and avoid differently the ambiguity with _Rb_tree::erase(const key_type&)? Like
renaming it, whatever?
