C++ – What’s the advantage of multimap over map of vectors

As the container grows, a reallocation for a vector requires copying all the elements into the new block of memory. Growing a deque allocates a new block and links it to the list of blocks - no copies are required.

Of course you can specify that a different backing container be used if you like. So if you have a stack that you know is not going to grow much, tell it to use a vector instead of a deque if that's your preference.

EDIT Since c++17, some parts of the standard library were removed. Fortunately, starting with c++11, we have lambdas which are a superior solution.

#include <algorithm> 
#include <cctype>
#include <locale>

// trim from start (in place)
static inline void ltrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(s.begin(), std::find_if(s.begin(), s.end(), [](unsigned char ch) {
        return !std::isspace(ch);
    }));
}

// trim from end (in place)
static inline void rtrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(std::find_if(s.rbegin(), s.rend(), [](unsigned char ch) {
        return !std::isspace(ch);
    }).base(), s.end());
}

// trim from both ends (in place)
static inline void trim(std::string &s) {
    ltrim(s);
    rtrim(s);
}

// trim from start (copying)
static inline std::string ltrim_copy(std::string s) {
    ltrim(s);
    return s;
}

// trim from end (copying)
static inline std::string rtrim_copy(std::string s) {
    rtrim(s);
    return s;
}

// trim from both ends (copying)
static inline std::string trim_copy(std::string s) {
    trim(s);
    return s;
}

Thanks to https://stackoverflow.com/a/44973498/524503 for bringing up the modern solution.

Original answer:

I tend to use one of these 3 for my trimming needs:

#include <algorithm> 
#include <functional> 
#include <cctype>
#include <locale>

// trim from start
static inline std::string &ltrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(s.begin(), std::find_if(s.begin(), s.end(),
            std::not1(std::ptr_fun<int, int>(std::isspace))));
    return s;
}

// trim from end
static inline std::string &rtrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(std::find_if(s.rbegin(), s.rend(),
            std::not1(std::ptr_fun<int, int>(std::isspace))).base(), s.end());
    return s;
}

// trim from both ends
static inline std::string &trim(std::string &s) {
    return ltrim(rtrim(s));
}

They are fairly self-explanatory and work very well.

EDIT: BTW, I have std::ptr_fun in there to help disambiguate std::isspace because there is actually a second definition which supports locales. This could have been a cast just the same, but I tend to like this better.

EDIT: To address some comments about accepting a parameter by reference, modifying and returning it. I Agree. An implementation that I would likely prefer would be two sets of functions, one for in place and one which makes a copy. A better set of examples would be:

#include <algorithm> 
#include <functional> 
#include <cctype>
#include <locale>

// trim from start (in place)
static inline void ltrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(s.begin(), std::find_if(s.begin(), s.end(),
            std::not1(std::ptr_fun<int, int>(std::isspace))));
}

// trim from end (in place)
static inline void rtrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(std::find_if(s.rbegin(), s.rend(),
            std::not1(std::ptr_fun<int, int>(std::isspace))).base(), s.end());
}

// trim from both ends (in place)
static inline void trim(std::string &s) {
    ltrim(s);
    rtrim(s);
}

// trim from start (copying)
static inline std::string ltrim_copy(std::string s) {
    ltrim(s);
    return s;
}

// trim from end (copying)
static inline std::string rtrim_copy(std::string s) {
    rtrim(s);
    return s;
}

// trim from both ends (copying)
static inline std::string trim_copy(std::string s) {
    trim(s);
    return s;
}

I am keeping the original answer above though for context and in the interest of keeping the high voted answer still available.