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

[Andreas Röhler]

On 06.09.2016 11:45, 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.
>
> 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'.

IIUC `prefix-numeric-value' is a more complex thing than providing a 
repeat counter - which it does for lower p.

prefix-numeric-value of C-u is 4 in contrast.

But let's go back to the simplest case of lower p in interactive spec:

What is easier to read/grasp

(setq counter (or arg 1)

or

(setq  counter (prefix-numeric-value arg))

IOW: in favor of avoiding these complex, tricky things. Let's have the 
code as explicit as possible.