It's pretty obvious that something like this should be illegal:
Should this be allowed?
My thoughts are...
- It could be surprising either way.
- We're specifically not trying to make sure the macro system is suitable for general purpose computing. Disallowing
0 here helps to make sure that you can't do something like (.if_none (.repeat (%x) '') "x is 0" "x is more than 0").
- In some implementations, it may be easier to implement the repeat macro if we can just raise an error for
0 rather than potentially adding special logic to advance the reader appropriately when it is 0.
I'm inclined to say no.
Second question is should the n parameter be flex_uint::n?
It's pretty obvious that something like this should be illegal:
Should this be allowed?
My thoughts are...
0here helps to make sure that you can't do something like(.if_none (.repeat (%x) '') "x is 0" "x is more than 0").0rather than potentially adding special logic to advance the reader appropriately when it is0.I'm inclined to say no.
Second question is should the
nparameter beflex_uint::n?