From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10178 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2005 15:51:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 10168 invoked by uid 48); 8 Dec 2005 15:51:22 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:51:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20051208155122.10167.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/25304] std::fill_n, std::generate_n incorrect signature In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "sebor at roguewave dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2005-12/txt/msg00837.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #10 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2005-12-08 15:51 ------- No, I don't. The standard is clear and most of us seem to think it's "by design." Rather I am suggesting is that we might want to discuss with the whole LWG changing the return type as an enhancement. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25304