This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of C++11 status.

### 1040. Clarify possible sameness of associative container's `iterator` and `const_iterator`

Section: 24.2.7 [associative.reqmts] Status: C++11 Submitter: Alisdair Meredith Opened: 2009-03-12 Last modified: 2016-01-28

Priority: Not Prioritized

View other active issues in [associative.reqmts].

View all other issues in [associative.reqmts].

View all issues with C++11 status.

Discussion:

Addresses UK 238 [CD1]

Leaving it unspecified whether or not `iterator` and `const_iterator` are the same type is dangerous, as user code may or may not violate the One Definition Rule by providing overloads for both types. It is probably too late to specify a single behaviour, but implementors should document what to expect. Observing that problems can be avoided by users restricting themselves to using `const_iterator`, add a note to that effect.

Suggest Change 'unspecified' to 'implementation defined'.

[ Summit: ]

> Agree with issue. Agree with adding the note but not with changing the normative text. We believe the note provides sufficient guidance.

[ Batavia (2009-05): ]

> We agree with the proposed resolution. Move to Tentatively Ready.

Proposed resolution:

In 24.2.7 [associative.reqmts] p6, add:

> -6- `iterator` of an associative container meets the requirements of the `BidirectionalIterator` concept. For associative containers where the value type is the same as the key type, both `iterator` and `const_iterator` are constant iterators. It is unspecified whether or not `iterator` and `const_iterator` are the same type. [Note: `iterator` and `const_iterator` have identical semantics in this case, and `iterator` is convertible to `const_iterator`. Users can avoid violating the One Definition Rule by always using `const_iterator` in their function parameter lists -- end note]