Thanks for pointing this out, thankfully the implementation already failed on a negative s value, but you're correct in that it wasn't definitive.
I also whole-heartedly agree with your comment about the unnecessary inclusion of a bignum that allows for negative values.
The lack of typing in this (and other cases) has lead to several problematic scenarios for users to the point we have littered the code with assertions to enforce whatever we can.
Thanks for pointing this out, thankfully the implementation already failed on a negative s value, but you're correct in that it wasn't definitive.
I also whole-heartedly agree with your comment about the unnecessary inclusion of a bignum that allows for negative values. The lack of typing in this (and other cases) has lead to several problematic scenarios for users to the point we have littered the code with assertions to enforce whatever we can.