Possible ambiguity in syntax of DEFINITION OF output

[brianharvey]

How do I know that the fourth item of this list is a formal parameter to the ringed procedure, rather than a third input to REPEAT?

I know the arity of REPEAT, but my parsing program shouldn't have to know it. And if it were a variadic function, it'd be even more confusing.

I propose that the first three items of the result list should instead be a list, which is then the second item of a three-item list: An empty command ring, the REPEAT stuff, and finally the SIZE variable as a pseudo-input to the ring.

P.S. If this proposal is accepted, it'll be even more important than before to get the handling of empty rings right.

P.P.S. I also propose to reduce the default display height of a List View list so as not to waste space for empty or singleton lists.

[jmoenig]

Let's discuss this in person and not here, plz