[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Andreas Röhler
Subject: Re: Rationale behind conversion of a nil prefix arg to numeric 1
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 09:22:22 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.2.0

On 05.09.2016 21:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <>
From: Andreas Röhler <>
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

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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]