[OskarS]

Huh, TIL! I didn't realize that, I just always avoid this pattern because it's such a common source of bugs (and if I really need to, I just use the erase_if).

EDIT: just saw your example and checked cppreference, it says the return value "Iterator following the last removed element" for std::unordered_map. So i think you need to add an `it--` after your erase, otherwise it will "skip over" the next element. Right?

Also just read this little nugget on cppreference for unordered_map::erase:

> Removes specified elements from the container.The order of the remaining elements is preserved. (This makes it possible to erase individual elements while iterating through the container.)

This seems like a crazy guarantee to put in the standard, it must really limit the kinds of hash tables you can make that matches the unordered_map interface.

[tom_]

The return value refers to the same element that you'd reach by skipping over the elemnent(s) rather than deleting them. So if doing 1 elemnt at a time, you can ++it (and now it is the next element), or you can it=erase(it) (and now the current item is gone, and it is the next element).

(In the map/unordered_map/set/etc. case, you can get away with storing std::advance(it) and then erasing, but when forward-iterating vectors the iterator invalidation rules are quite different and the API is designed to cover this.)

[monkeyelite]

> This seems like a crazy guarantee to put in the standard

It’s a great and useful guarantee.

> it must really limit the kinds of hash tables you can make that matches the unordered_map interface.

Many libraries treat containers as “abstract” with many possible implementations. STL explicitly does not. It’s a specific data structure from a computer science class.