------- Comment #4 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2007-01-09 22:34 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > The standard refers to "(l+n)%size()", so if size()=0, that seems to be > undefined. On the other hand, it seems fairly obvious what should happen in > this case (ie nothing).
The requirement is to "return an object of length size() each of whose elements..." If there are no elements the "..." doesn't/cannot apply. Note that an analogous expression is used in rotate_copy which I assume we all agree is well defined for zero-length ranges. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30416
