https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119374
--- Comment #9 from mroe <[email protected]> --- > Excel is not the reference when dealing with date/times, particularly not > when negative values are involved which Excel can not handle at all. That's right! (But not only in this case.) > I don't see any reason why function TIME should not behave like function > DATE which calculates correct positive and negative day numbers for any > positive or negative integers you throw at it. Ok, the year has to be > Gregorian (>1582). The difference is: A calendar date is any date >= 1.1.1 So the question is: what is the/a date before 1.1.1? (Is the year before common era [B.C.E.] the year 0 or -1?) We can define the day 0 to 31.12.0. But if we count from there there is no negative day. But Calc defines the representation of the days/calendar dates with an integer with 0 = 30.12.1899 The minimal value is =DATE(1582;10;15) = -115858 The internal _representation_ of a (positive!) day can by a negative integer. A (clock) time has no date count and is always a value 00:00:00 (0) <= time < 24:00:00 (1). > The cell value calculated by TIME should be as simple as > =hours/24+minutes/1440+seconds/86400 => positive or negative number > representing the amount of days. > This value can be formatted as a point of time HH:MM:SS or as a period of > time [HH]:MM:SS And here comes the difficulty: TIME() calculates a (clock) time not a period of time! And this is 100 % equivalent to DATE(). In your opinion there should be =TIME(-6;0;0) = -0.25 = 18:00:00 (HH:MM:SS) =(?) -06:00:00 ([HH]:MM:SS) =TIME(-30;0;0) = -1.25 = 18:00:00 (HH:MM:SS) =(?) -30:00:00 ([HH]:MM:SS) I vote for =TIME(-6;0;0) = 0.75 = 18:00:00 (HH:MM:SS) =(!) 18:00:00 ([HH]:MM:SS) =TIME(-30;0;0) = 0.75 = 18:00:00 (HH:MM:SS) =(!) 18:00:00 ([HH]:MM:SS) in compatibility to the actual (and for me right) implementation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the issue.
