>>665
つか、君は何に文句を言っているのだ？そこにそのまま書いてあるだろ。
> When describing iterator invalidation,
> the C++ standard takes the simplifying assumption that iterators refer to elements,
> and a valid iterator value always refers to same element.
> Invalidating references, pointers or iterators to an element all follow the same rules. (The exception is the end iterator).
>
> Clearly references or pointers to the erased element are invalidated by a call to erase,
> thus under the standard's simple rules so are all iterators.
> It could have described what new element must be moved in place abd substituted what iterators refer to,
> but the writers of the standard chise not to go there. They instead simply dictated the iterator was invalid.

eraseでvecが移動しないことは保証されてるだろ。
当然vec[0]は削除後の先頭要素を指す。
ただしそもそも削除後にイテレータを再代入してないコートについては知るかボケだろ。
それについてもそこにモロに書いてあるし。

そのページは俺の言い分を全く書いてあるような物なんだが、何が言いたいんだ？