On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 14:15:23 GMT, Roger Riggs <[email protected]> wrote:
> As specified and implemented, `Duration.plus(long amount, TemporalUnit)` does
> not make an exception for amount == 0. For any other value of month or years,
> the value is an estimate and the exception is thrown. It might be useful to
> consider a change (as a separate enhancement)
I'm not sure that I completely understand what you are saying. Are you saying
that a zero of any unit is still zero and, if added, could result in the
initial instant rather than throw an exception if the unit is "incompatible"
with `Instant`?
If so, then it reminds me of the following problem: should an unmodifiable set
allow to delete an element which it does not contain? Different APIs decide
differently. For example, this throws an exception:
Set.of().remove(1)
Whereas this doesn't:
Collections.emptySet().remove(1)
I don't know java.time deeply enough to lean one way or the other. But my gut
feeling tells me that unconditional exception is easier to reason about and is
more reliable.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27549#discussion_r2417776606
