Re: Rationale behind conversion of a nil prefix arg to numeric 1

[Andreas Röhler]

On 05.09.2016 21:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> > From: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de>
> > Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 20:41:22 +0200
> >
> > Leaving out the argument with uppercased P, it sends nil --correct--
> > whose numeric value is considered 1 again.
> >
> > Understand it might be considered a feature, but think the caused
> > inconsistency weights in more.
> So you also disagree with nil meaning "the default value", do you?
> Because, according to you, nil cannot possibly stand for any value but
> zero,

At least if something supposed the a "numeric argument". Sure, that 
might be translated. But than that default should be mentioned when the 
form is introduced.


>   without risking to be "inconsistent", is that right?
>
> But if you do accept that nil can stand for the default value, why
> cannot you accept that in the case of repeat count it stands for 1,
> i.e. that 1 is the default value in this context?

I can accept that and live with it. Just thought current state is not 
the best we can have.