TIP #289: REVISION OF [LREPEAT] ARGUMENT ORDER 
================================================
 Version:      $Revision: 1.5 $
 Author:       Peter Spjuth <peter.spjuth_at_space.se>
               <dgp_at_users.sf.net>
 State:        Rejected
 Type:         Project
 Tcl-Version:  8.5
 Vote:         Done
 Created:      Thursday, 26 October 2006
 URL:          https://tip.tcl-lang.org289.html
 Post-History: 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ABSTRACT 
==========

 This TIP proposes to alter the argument order of *lrepeat* to be 
 similar to *string repeat*. 

 RATIONALE 
===========

 In [TIP #136], lrepeat is defined as: 

       *lrepeat* /number element1/ ?/element2/? ?/element3/? ... 

 whereas the old string repeat command is: 

       *string repeat* /string number/ 

 This difference between similar commands is bound to cause confusion. 
 Consistency is good. 

 SPECIFICATION 
===============

 Change lrepeat's argument order to: 

       *lrepeat* /element1/ ?/element2/? ?/element3/? ... *number* 

 EXAMPLES: 
===========

    lrepeat 0 100                - returns list of 100 zeros
    lrepeat [lrepeat 0 100] 100  - returns 100x100 matrix (list of lists) of zeros
    lrepeat a b c 3              - returns nine-element list {a b c a b c a b c}
    lrepeat a b c 1              - identical to [list a b c]

 DISCUSSION: 
=============

 DGP: The main feature that appears to get lost in this change is the 
 ability to redirect aliases or subcommands of ensembles to *lrepeat* 
 calls with the number of repetitions already filled in. 

 PS: On the other hand, you get the ability to redirect aliases or 
 subcommands of ensembles to *lrepeat* calls with the elements already 
 filled in. 

 DGP: I skimmed the old TIP 136 messages in the TCLCORE archives. One 
 thing to note is that the existing *lrepeat* syntax in 8.5a5 was chosen 
 in part to be consistent with the existing *struct::list repeat* syntax 
 in the struct::list package. 

 DGP: I think it's fair to say that given a complete "do-over" more of 
 us would opt to change *string repeat* to agree with *lrepeat* and 
 *struct::list repeat* than the other way around. 

 COPYRIGHT 
===========

 This document has been placed in the public domain. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 TIP AutoGenerator - written by Donal K. Fellows