------- 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
