In such a case, doesn't this sentence guarantee that the pointer now
points to the new object constructed at that position?
> http://eel.is/c++draft/basic.memobj#basic.life-8.sentence-1
Right, yeah, sorry. I agree, the pointers and references should continue to be usable to access the new object (or the original object with the new value, if the shuffle is accomplished by assignment).
That said, a library implementation that has access to magic could invalidate the pointers and references if it expends sufficient effort; for example, pointer tagging.
So allowing the pointers and references to be used after insert would close off a class of correctness checking; the question is whether at present use of a pointer/reference (or, indeed, an iterator) after an insert is more likely to be intentional or a bug.