Start filling in the specification around RegulateDate. #364
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #364 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 84.37% 84.32% -0.05%
==========================================
Files 17 17
Lines 3462 3458 -4
Branches 408 407 -1
==========================================
- Hits 2921 2916 -5
- Misses 505 506 +1
Partials 36 36
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| @@ -264,6 +264,13 @@ <h1>NonNegativeModulo ( _x_, _y_ )</h1> | |||
| </emu-alg> | |||
| </emu-clause> | |||
|
|
|||
| <emu-clause id="sec-temporal-constraintorange" aoid="ConstrainToRange"> | |||
| <h1>ConstrainToRange ( _x_, _minimum_, _maximum_ )</h1> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This kind of “ClampToRange” operation seems like it’d be generally useful in the spec; there's 9 instances of min(max(x, minimum), maximum) in there (and 1 of max(min(x, maximum), minimum)). any interest in making an editorial PR, in advance of Temporal?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No interest on my side, but feel free to take the idea and run with it.
| <h1>ConstrainDate ( _year_, _month_, _day_ )</h1> | ||
| <emu-alg> | ||
| 1. Assert: _year_, _month_, and _day_ are integer Number values. | ||
| 1. Set _year_ to ConstrainToRange(_year_, -999999, 999999). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See #198, I'm not sure it's settled that this is the range of years. Then again, I think this is what the polyfill currently does, so no need to block merging on that.
| </emu-alg> | ||
| </emu-clause> | ||
|
|
||
| <emu-clause id="sec-temporal-balancedate" aoid="BalanceDate"> |
| [[Month]]: _month_, | ||
| [[Day]]: _day_ | ||
| }. | ||
| 1. Let _leapYear_ be 1972. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any reason for 1972 in particular?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any leap year will do; this one was close to 1970 which was used in the polyfill before (presumably based on the epoch).
The BalanceDate operation was missing from the spec until now. While translating the current polyfill implementation into a spec, I also noticed some opportunities for simplification.
No description provided.