C++ collect algorithm? -

Every now and then, I should run again on a subset of elements of a container, or just want to remove them and ignore them. rest. I'm ending using boost :: range :: adapters :: filtered to create this lazy collection for I

  (auto & amp; ; I: Container | Filtered (bidak)) {// .. Do Dot}   
 Is there any reason for this lacking of STLs collected algorithms (in Ruby's collection) (we only Copy_if that is not the same)? Or is there any reason to use it?  
 A possible implementation can be:  
  template & lt; Class Container, Class Preddate & gt; Collect Container (Container & amp; C; Kindle & amp; amp; amp; P) {Container N; (Auto & amp; amp; i: c) {for {((i)} {n.push_back (i); }} Return n; }   
 But a  lazy_collect  can also be useful to avoid duplication.  
 All the answers below are great. I wish I could mark them all I did not know about  std :: back_inserter . Collecting stuff is as easy now:  
  Promotion: copy (original) filter (predicate), std :: back_inserter (archive)); Standard algorithms do not work directly on containers (making or destroying or changing them).    
 
 
 their size). They work on iterator ranges, and algorithm changes that are made only through an assignment through an assignment.  
 Therefore, your proposed operation is completely out of the scope of the standard algorithm. There may be a large additional set of standard "container-operations", in which it includes one, but "STL philosophy" is running on Iterators.  
 The non-sluggish operation you can propose is  std :: back_inserter  and  std :: copy_if  (optionally using trick drivers) or Can be done using  move_if  (if you roll it yourself).  std :: copy_if  went missing from C ++ 03, but it was a casual inspection.  
 The lazy version can not be done by pluging standard components simultaneously - there is no clear to silence the "output" of an algorithm directly in "input" of another algorithm without intermediate storage. There is no way. This is why Boost offers such an interesting variety of itater, as well as range.  
 I do not know why they were not included in C ++ 11, but C + 11 was that it was rather late, the proposals were removed due to lack of time, so The reason for this can be as simple "considering the current workload known, it was not considered sufficiently significant to offer it."  
 Regarding your particular implementation, not all containers have  push_back , and therefore you probably will not use  container  as template parameter name should do. Requirements of  pushback succession  will be more descriptive.