Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> > JAnderson wrote:
> >> Max Samukha wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:23:30 +0400,
> "Koroskin Denis"
> >>> <2korden+dmd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> But you still have to remove a dead
> pointer from a collection:
> >>>>
> >>>> delete *("x" in hash);
> >>>> hash.remove("x");
> >>>
> >>> If 'remove' was modified to return the
> removed value, more compact
> >>> syntax would be possible:
> >>>
> >>> delete hash.remove("x");
> >>>
> >>> Also, there would be no need to search for the
> value twice and
> >>> introduce a temporary when the removed value
> is needed for further
> >>> processing:
> >>>
> >>> // do something with the value, for example,
> pass it to a function
> >>> foo(hash.remove("x"));
> >>>
> >>> instead of:
> >>> auto v = hash["x"];
> >>> hash.remove("x");
> >>> foo(v);
> >>  I think this is a good idea.
> >
> > Seconded!
> >
> > Regan Heath
> 
> Thirded!

 I'm always interested in using more compact and more general versions of functions, rather than having to take more steps, so Fourthed!