This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of CD1 status.
Section: 24.3.11.5 [vector.modifiers] Status: CD1 Submitter: Matt Austern Opened: 2003-08-19 Last modified: 2016-01-28
Priority: Not Prioritized
View all other issues in [vector.modifiers].
View all issues with CD1 status.
Discussion:
Consider the following code fragment:
int A[8] = { 1,3,5,7,9,8,4,2 };
std::vector<int> v(A, A+8);
std::vector<int>::iterator i1 = v.begin() + 3;
std::vector<int>::iterator i2 = v.begin() + 4;
v.erase(i1);
Which iterators are invalidated by v.erase(i1): i1, i2,
both, or neither?
On all existing implementations that I know of, the status of i1 and i2 is the same: both of them will be iterators that point to some elements of the vector (albeit not the same elements they did before). You won't get a crash if you use them. Depending on exactly what you mean by "invalidate", you might say that neither one has been invalidated because they still point to something, or you might say that both have been invalidated because in both cases the elements they point to have been changed out from under the iterator.
The standard doesn't say either of those things. It says that erase invalidates all iterators and references "after the point of the erase". This doesn't include i1, since it's at the point of the erase instead of after it. I can't think of any sensible definition of invalidation by which one can say that i2 is invalidated but i1 isn't.
(This issue is important if you try to reason about iterator validity based only on the guarantees in the standard, rather than reasoning from typical implementation techniques. Strict debugging modes, which some programmers find useful, do not use typical implementation techniques.)
Proposed resolution:
In 24.3.11.5 [vector.modifiers] paragraph 3, change "Invalidates all the iterators and references after the point of the erase" to "Invalidates iterators and references at or after the point of the erase".
Rationale:
I believe this was essentially a typographical error, and that it was taken for granted that erasing an element invalidates iterators that point to it. The effects clause in question treats iterators and references in parallel, and it would seem counterintuitive to say that a reference to an erased value remains valid.