Adding Daniel's correct address (Daniel, the thread started at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg01752.html)
On 26 August 2012 14:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 26 August 2012 14:08, Ulrich Drepper wrote: >> >> If people agree this is acceptable and the consensus is that >> generate_n() is the better name I can submit a patch so that the >> remaining <random> work can be submitted. Still ways to go... > > Unless you're thinking of changing the interface to take a pointer and > an integer then generate_n() is not a good name, maybe generate() > though.
