That was the part that I did expect. REPEAT/RANGE does the thing that
Fortran, Julia &c. also do (in FOR loops), but as soon we use
pseudo-variables it becomes less intuitive in my mind.
Maybe it would be nice if a new syntax is introduced for one of the two behaviors without removing the existing syntax.
Off the top of my head (and hence I don't think this is optimal),
repeat/i=(10, 1, -1)
--> i = 10, 9, 8, . . .
repeat/range=(10,1,-1)/name=m
--> m = 10, 9, 8, . . .
whereas
repeat/i=10:1 --> i = 1, 2, 3, . . .
repeat/range=10:1 --> empty range.
Eventually the users would move away from the old syntax and the inconsistency would become less of the problem.
Regards,
Ryo