"string".repeat(0)

# Allen Wirfs-Brock (13 years ago)

What do people think? Should a repeat count of 0 be accepted and produce an empty string? Does this case show up frequently in string processing algorithms?

See https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=922 

What do people think?  Should a repeat count of 0 be accepted and produce an empty string?  Does this case show up frequently in string processing algorithms?

Allen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121122/9866d555/attachment.html>

# David Bruant (13 years ago)

Le 22/11/2012 21:44, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit :

See ecmascript#922

What do people think? Should a repeat count of 0 be accepted and produce an empty string?

I would expect so.

Le 22/11/2012 21:44, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit :
> See https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=922
>
> What do people think?  Should a repeat count of 0 be accepted and 
> produce an empty string?
I would expect so.

David

# Brendan Eich (13 years ago)

David Bruant wrote:

Le 22/11/2012 21:44, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit :

See ecmascript#922

What do people think? Should a repeat count of 0 be accepted and produce an empty string? I would expect so.

Definitely. 0 is the basis case, not 1. See Ruby (as noted in the bug), also Perl, PHP, and many, many other languages:

rosettacode.org/wiki/Repeat_a_string

David Bruant wrote:
> Le 22/11/2012 21:44, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit :
>> See https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=922
>>
>> What do people think?  Should a repeat count of 0 be accepted and 
>> produce an empty string?
> I would expect so.

Definitely. 0 is the basis case, not 1. See Ruby (as noted in the bug), 
also Perl, PHP, and many, many other languages:

http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Repeat_a_string

/be