Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date

7 May 2013

      On May 7, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Anders Dalvander  wrote:
...
On 2013-05-06 05:29, Howard Hinnant wrote:
...
Btw, I'm getting better at this (speaking of manual dexterity more than coding):
day_point d = year(2013) / may / day(5);
    auto t = hours(22) + minutes(55) + seconds(55);
    auto dt = d + t;
    auto EDT = -hours(4);
    dt -= EDT;
    auto dt_now = system_clock::now();
    auto diff = dt_now - dt;
    std::cout << duration_cast<milliseconds>(diff).count() << " ms\n";
Output:
318 ms
-------------------------
My point in this post is that we have an existing std::chrono date_time facility and it would be good to interoperate with it.  Dissecting this code line by line:
day_point d = year(2013) / may / day(5);
d is a std::chrono::time_point with the same epoch as std::chrono::system_clock::time_point, but has a much coarser resolution (technically day_point::period):  std::ratio<86400>.
Because d has the same epoch as system_clock::time_point, the two types can, by C++11 rules, have arithmetic together.  You can subtract one from the other and it just works.  The result is a std::chrono::duration with the precision of the common_type of the two precisions (typically the finer).
So, the above code is proposed.  But much of the following code is simply existing C++11, showing interoperability with the proposed code with C++11.
auto t = hours(22) + minutes(55) + seconds(55);
Nothing new about the above code.  This is just a std::chrono::duration with a resolution of seconds.  It exists today.
auto dt = d + t;
Technically this time_point is in UTC, and means 22::55::55 after midnight.  However that obviously was not the intent of the code. However I could have written:

auto dt = d + (t - EDT);

And then the time_point would have no point in which it doesn't point to the desired time.
...
...
The proposal is that d has type time_point>>.  If that is so, then it is, by C++11 rules, already legal to add such a time_point to a duration of seconds.  The result is a
time_point>>
I.e. the result is a time_point with the same epoch as system_clock.  A rep capable of holding the union of values from both d and t, and a precision capable of holding both all values from d and all values from t.  In English: dt is a count of seconds from the system_clock epoch ... all by C++11 specification.  Nothing invented here except day_point in the first line.
auto EDT = -hours(4);
This is just C++11.  A duration type.  It could have any units: hours, minutes, seconds, whatever.
dt -= EDT;
The above statement is the one which troubles me. Before executing the statement `dt` is supposedly in EDT, and after the statement has executed `dt` is in UTC (or is it the other way around). Anyway `dt` is of type `time_point>>` as you wrote, but that type has a defined meaning. Each `time_point` is a single point in time, an instant. If we start to make exceptions to this rule, then we're back with the problems of `boost::date_time::ptime`.
And what about the `system_clock::to_time_t` and `time_point::time_since_epoch` functions? Shouldn't it be possible to call them at any given time and not worry if someone has adjusted the time_point to be in the "correct" timezone?
This is one of the things that I hoped the chrono library would solve by requiring the user to explicit.
The C-library is this explicit, why shouldn't the chrono library be able to be explicit as well?
Perhaps it can be.  The intent of the above snippet is to show that:

1.  chrono::time_point has a critical role here.  It is a serial type.  When it has precision finer than a day, it is a serial date_time type.  When it has precision of a day, it is a serial date_days type.  And if time_points of different precision share a clock, you can do time_point arithmetic with them, even though they have different precisions.  The result will be a time_point (or duration) with a precision that can represent the result with no loss of precision.

2.  1. is useful!  We can use 1 to effortlessly handle timezone differences, even ridiculous timezone offsets in minutes or seconds.

3.  There is a direct correspondence with std::system_clock.

The above doesn't have to be the final or everyday syntax that the client uses.  But (imho) it demonstrates a solid foundation which we should build upon.

Howard