repeat with times

[ambassador at fourthworld.com]

andrew at midwestcoastmedia.com wrote:

> I realize there are better and more efficient ways to construct that
> loop, but the fact that the original code does not throw an error in
> 9.0.5rc1 but does throw an error in 9.5dp1 made it seem like a
> regression.

If the syntax is invalid, flagging it as an error isn't a regression, 
it's a fix.


> After re-reading the release notes I think this is probably the result
> of bug 20951 being squashed @
> https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=20951

That sounds like it.

- rg/4w