Remove stl_util's STLDeleteContainerPointers.

base/stl_util.h

Index: base/stl_util.h
diff --git a/base/stl_util.h b/base/stl_util.h
index 4159d8524a3f7e24d7d9101daae9d2d27b1d99a3..040579bba35bf17661d447d7f474d5b386e69887 100644
--- a/base/stl_util.h
+++ b/base/stl_util.h
@@ -29,24 +29,6 @@ void STLClearObject(T* obj) {
   obj->reserve(0);
 }
 
-// For a range within a container of pointers, calls delete (non-array version)
-// on these pointers.
-// NOTE: for these three functions, we could just implement a DeleteObject
-// functor and then call for_each() on the range and functor, but this
-// requires us to pull in all of algorithm.h, which seems expensive.
-// For hash_[multi]set, it is important that this deletes behind the iterator
-// because the hash_set may call the hash function on the iterator when it is
-// advanced, which could result in the hash function trying to deference a
-// stale pointer.
-template <class ForwardIterator>
-void STLDeleteContainerPointers(ForwardIterator begin, ForwardIterator end) {
-  while (begin != end) {
-    ForwardIterator temp = begin;
-    ++begin;
-    delete *temp;
-  }
-}
-
 // Counts the number of instances of val in a container.
 template <typename Container, typename T>
 typename std::iterator_traits<
@@ -85,7 +67,14 @@ template <class T>
 void STLDeleteElements(T* container) {
   if (!container)
     return;
-  STLDeleteContainerPointers(container->begin(), container->end());
+
+  auto it = container->begin();
+  while (it != container->end()) {

[Mark Mentovai, 2016/10/31 19:52:02]

for would be more concise by one line.

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2016/10/31 21:17:40]

Is the issue of not being able to advance the iterator noted in the comment on
STLDeleteContainerPointers not an issue? I kept the same basic structure because
I wasn't entirely sure and because I'm getting rid of this soon, also.

+    auto temp = it;
+    ++it;
+    delete *temp;
+  }
+
   container->clear();
 }