On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Adam Romanek <romanek.adam@gmail.com>wrote:
On 02/07/2013 11:39 AM, Neil Groves wrote:
On this particular ocassion the documentation is correct. The std::erase algorithm does not remove elements. Hence the erase - remove idiom is frequently useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Erase-remove_idiom<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erase-remove_idiom>
I have then made this idiom available and directly supported in Boost.Range.
I know what std::erase, std::remove and the idiom are all about. The problem in the documentation is still there.
Well it would be... I have only just been shown where the problem is ;-)
Check the documentation of "remove_erase" algorithm. It says:
"(...) This is in contrast to the *remove* algorithm which merely rearranges elements. (...)"
Thanks for this report it is true that this one is incorrect. This was not what your original email contained. You posted a snippet from the correct example. You also explicitly stated: "I believe it's not in contrast to the "erase" algorithm but rather the "remove" algorithm.". You didn't highlight that remove_erase_if was inconsistent to remove_erase. From what was presented the most likely explanation was that you had a fairly common mis-aprehension to many others about the std::erase algorithm. I'm delighted that this is not the case, but please don't take offence.
On the other hand, the documentation of "remove_erase_if" algorithm says:
"(...) This is in contrast to the *erase* algorithm which merely rearranges elements. (...)"
Can you see the difference?
I can see the defect now that the relevant section has been highlighted. I understand that you meant that the documentation for remove_erase is incorrect rather than remove_erase_if. I shall correct this for the next release.
WBR, Adam Romanek
Thanks for the report, Neil Groves