I'm curious about the rationale behind the following code. For a given map, I can delete a range up to, but not including, end() (obviously,) using the following code:
map<string, int> myMap;
myMap["one"] = 1;
myMap["two"] = 2;
myMap["three"] = 3;
map<string, int>::iterator it = myMap.find("two");
myMap.erase( it, myMap.end() );
This erases the last two items using the range. However, if I used the single iterator version of erase, I half expected passing myMap.end() to result in no action as the iterator was clearly at the end of the collection. This is as distinct from a corrupt or invalid iterator which would clearly lead to undefined behaviour.
However, when I do this:
myMap.erase( myMap.end() );
I simply get a segmentation fault. I wouldn't have thought it difficult for map to check whether the iterator equalled end() and not take action in that case. Is there some subtle reason for this that I'm missing? I noticed that even this works:
myMap.erase( myMap.end(), myMap.end() );
(i.e. does nothing)
The reason I ask is that I have some code which receives a valid iterator to the collection (but which could be end()) and I wanted to simply pass this into erase rather than having to check first like this:
if ( it != myMap.end() )
myMap.erase( it );
which seems a bit clunky to me. The alternative is to re code so I can use the by-key-type erase overload but I'd rather not re-write too much if I can help it.
The key is that in the standard library ranges determined by two iterators are half-opened ranges. In math notation [a,b) They include the first but not the last iterator (if both are the same, the range is empty). At the same time, end() returns an iterator that is one beyond the last element, which perfectly matches the half-open range notation.
When you use the range version of erase it will never try to delete the element referenced by the last iterator. Consider a modified example:
map<int,int> m;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
m[i] = i;
m.erase( m.find(1), m.find(4) );
At the end of the execution the map will hold two keys 0 and 4. Note that the element referred by the second iterator was not erased from the container.
On the other hand, the single iterator operation will erase the element referenced by the iterator. If the code above was changed to:
for (int i = 1; i <= 4; ++i )
m.erase( m.find(i) );
The element with key 4 will be deleted. In your case you will attempt to delete the end iterator that does not refer to a valid object.
I wouldn't have thought it difficult for map to check whether the iterator equalled end() and not take action in that case.
No, it is not hard to do, but the function was designed with a different contract in mind: the caller must pass in an iterator into an element in the container. Part of the reason for this is that in C++ most of the features are designed so that the incur the minimum cost possible, allowing the user to balance the safety/performance on their side. The user can test the iterator before calling erase, but if that test was inside the library then the user would not be able to opt out of testing when she knows that the iterator is valid.