Method .history/**/.records/*:fetch could have parameter [i(0,):offset,i(0,):count] instead of [i:offset,i(0,):count] and .history/**/.records/*:span could return [i(0,):smallest,i(0,):biggest,i(1,):span] instead of [i:smallest,i:biggest,i(1,):span]. Generally, there is no strict reason why record's index could not be negative, it just doesn't make much sense. These IDs are defined as unique and always increasing, so starting at a negative index does not have any effect, but it is less comprehensible. Therefore I would limit indexes to unsigned integers only (packed as Int, just limited in types description).
Method
.history/**/.records/*:fetchcould have parameter[i(0,):offset,i(0,):count]instead of[i:offset,i(0,):count]and.history/**/.records/*:spancould return[i(0,):smallest,i(0,):biggest,i(1,):span]instead of[i:smallest,i:biggest,i(1,):span]. Generally, there is no strict reason why record's index could not be negative, it just doesn't make much sense. These IDs are defined as unique and always increasing, so starting at a negative index does not have any effect, but it is less comprehensible. Therefore I would limit indexes to unsigned integers only (packed as Int, just limited in types description).