Hi
On 6/29/26 19:42, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
Thank you for providing that example. The restriction was primarily
added as a safety: Removing restrictions later is always possible,
adding them is not. So absent a good use-case choosing the “error”
option is safer. Given you have provided an example, it makes sense to
me to lift the restriction.
For the `fromSeconds()` constructor it's not completely obvious how to
handle negative values there (see the discussion with Marc). I think
requiring both parameters to have the same sign would be the correct
solution here, since this will provide for an intuitive representation
of magnitude (see also below). What do you think?
I'll also discuss this with Derick before adjusting the RFC.
I have now discussed this with Derick. He said that he would prefer
keeping the restriction for now, particularly since the `fromSeconds()`
constructor is not totally obvious.
But as mentioned in my previous email, this is something we can revisit
later, for example when adding the “Future Scope” classes, before that
happens, negative Durations are not particularly useful anyways.
Given the small remaining time until the freeze, I'm going to “close
out” this thread, but it will definitely serve as a useful reference in
the future. Thanks again!
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
