From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32303 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2005 16:23:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 32289 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2005 16:23:29 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20051208162329.32288.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: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" 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/msg00843.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #14 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-08 16:23 ------- Subject: Re: std::fill_n, std::generate_n incorrect signature "pcarlini at suse dot de" writes: | 2- As I see the issue, it depends a lot on the actual timeframe of | the possible enhancement to the standard. I mean, if we are thinking | about C++0x, seems rather far in time. I think most of our users | would not perceive our practice as randomly going back and forward | on something. Fair enough. (At Lillehammer, we set to have x, in C++0x, a digit; so that means we're almost done by 2007. That is not far, given that LWG would not need to wait 2007 before agreeing on the issue. I was amazed to discover that CWG two two meetings to open an issue and move it to WP. LWG could do the same. Hint, hint, :-)) -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25304