beginner-level problem... I think...

[IWishIKnew]

This has worked in the past...

//eliminate the child from the list
    map<string, int> newpar = parents;
    string chil = child;
    for(map<string, int>::iterator it = newpar.begin(); it != newpar.end();)
    {
        
        //(it == newpar.end()) ALWAYS equals false.  This is the problem!!
        
        if(it->first == chil)  //this is where it stops
        {
            //(it == newpar.end()) is false here... always...
            newpar.erase(it);
            //loop back without adding the next one
            
            //(it == newpar.end()) is false here... always...
            continue;
        }
        
        //only add if we didn't erase anything
        //(it == newpar.end()) is false here... always...
        
        /* WTF...WTFWTFWTFWTF?!?!?!?!*/
        it++;
    }

Will someone help me? I can not figure out why it is throwing segfaults.

Explanation (reason of emplimentation):

The following is supposed to allow for quick search of a parent path. Since the child path is also included within the list, it must be eliminated before we start searching.

[Thumper]

When you erase an element from a map it invalidates the current iterator (it++ will yield meaningless results.) map::erase returns an iterator pointing to the element that follows the last removed element.
this should fix your problem:

it = newpar.erase(it);

[IWishIKnew]

My understanding is that a vector<string>::iterator would be able to function correctly in this loop. Is this strictly a map<class, class>::iterator feature?

[firedraco]

No. .erase will always invalidate the current iterator (it deletes it!)

[IWishIKnew]

@firedraco

Yes, but the the rest take it's place. This loop has worked with vectors flawlessly in the past. This is the first instance where it has not worked.

[firedraco]

Yes, but the the rest take it's place.

No, they don't.

You need to stop thinking of iterators as pointers; they are not.

The only reason it worked with vectors is because you got lucky.