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

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 11:45:28AM +0200, Florian v. Savigny wrote:
> 
> 
>   > Alternatively, for Andreas the axiom "the default value is always 0"
>   > holds ;-P
> 
> I do sympathise with him, because my question started out supposing
> exactly the same thing. It just seems intuitive that nil translates to
> the number 0, if any, and when things are intuitive, this is (I think)
> generally good.

Definitely. Andreas' viewpoint is in some way understandable.

> It all becomes immediately clear when you understand that the numeric
> prefix arg has a special purpose, i.e. is conceived as a repeat
> counter (and NOT simply a number), but only then. In other words,
> `prefix-arg-as-repeat-counter' might be the kind of name that would be
> more readily understandable (and would even arguably be more accurate)
> than `prefix-numeric-value'.

I.e. "when the action is multiplicative, use the multiplicative neutral
element (i.e. 1) as default, not the additive (ie. 0) ;-)

But I'll shut up now.

regards and thanks for your lenience

- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlfOmi0ACgkQBcgs9XrR2karDgCfQaGjbKee0Mal3uWFra1zyyZA
NDsAn3N/VAm6Vxzt+ddMBtitINtiXO7k
=sy/y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----