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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> 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, 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?