Vajrasky Kok added the comment: Larry said, "A proper fix for the "bug" will require changing the semantics of the function. It's inappropriate to do that in 2.7, 3.3, and (now that we're in beta) 3.4."
I think we can not have it all and need to be pragmatic in this ticket. While we can not fix the default value quirk in 2.7, 3.3, and 3.4, at least we can make the negative times consistent whether it is sent through positional or keyword. Otherwise, we have to fix the doc: repeat(object [,times]) create an iterator which returns the object for the specified number of times. If not specified, returns the object endlessly.If times is negative and is sent via positional, it means zero repetitions. But if times is negative and is sent via keyword, it means endless repetition. And it doesn't feel right, does it? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue19145> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
