Even further, the *Notes* section of clear() clarifies further:

*Calling clear() does not affect the result of capacity()
<https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/capacity.html>. The
standard's restriction on the changes to capacity is in the specification
of reserve()
<https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/reserve.html>, see SO
<https://stackoverflow.com/a/18467916>.*

So, I feel like no clarifications to the standard are needed, let alone
actual changes

Op di 7 okt 2025 om 22:35 schreef Rhidian De Wit <rhidiandewit_at_[hidden]>:

> Isn't cppreference
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/clear.html>quite
> clear about what clear() does?
>
> *Erases all elements from the container. After this call, size()
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/size.html> returns
> zero.*
>
> *Invalidates any references, pointers, and iterators referring to
> contained elements. Any past-the-end iterators are also invalidated.*
>
>
> it never specifies anything about releasing memory, or resetting values.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Rhidian
>
> Op di 7 okt 2025 om 22:12 schreef Jerome Saint-Martin via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]>:
>
>> *Motivation*
>> In the Standard Template Library (STL), the clear() function is defined
>> for containers like std::vector, std::deque, and others. Its behavior is
>> functionally equivalent to:
>> container.erase(container.begin(), container.end());
>>
>> It removes all elements from the container, reducing its size() to zero,
>> but *does not release memory* (capacity remains unchanged), nor does it
>> reset values. This leads to a subtle redundancy in the API: clear() is
>> essentially a shorthand for a full-range erase().
>>
>> *Observation*
>> While clear() is widely used and syntactically convenient, it introduces
>> a semantic ambiguity. Many developers — especially those new to C++ —
>> assume clear() “resets” the container’s values. In reality, it *destroys* the
>> elements, not reinitializes them.
>> This confusion is compounded by the fact that clear() does not offer
>> anything beyond what erase(begin(), end()) already provides.
>>
>> *Too Much Progress Kills the Progress*
>>
>> *In the early days of programming, we used erase(begin(), end()) like our
>> ancestors used silex to make fire. It was precise, intentional, and part of
>> the craft. Then came clear() — a smoother, more modern tool. But in
>> simplifying, we may have blurred its purpose. Today, we have expressive
>> tools like resize(n, val), ranges, and lambdas.*
>>
>> *Proposal*
>>
>> - *Option A (radical)*:
>> - Deprecate or remove clear() from STL containers where it is
>> strictly equivalent to erase(begin(), end())
>> - reclaim clear() for a more meaningful role — resetting vector
>> values to a default value, like resize(n, val) does — and let erase(begin(),
>> end()) remain the sharp silex in our toolbox.
>> - *Option B (soft)*: Clarify in the standard documentation that
>> clear() is a semantic alias for erase(begin(), end()), and does *not* reset
>> values or release memory.
>>
>>
>> std::co_proposers :: Jérôme Saint-Martin and friend Beg Copilot
>>
>> --
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>
>
>
> --
> Rhidian De Wit
> Software Engineer - Barco
>

-- 
Rhidian De Wit
Software Engineer - Barco