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

7 May 2013

      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;
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?
...
As dt is a timePoint with precision seconds, as long as the UTC offset does not have finer precision than seconds, this just works according to existing C++11 time_point arithmetic.
auto dt_now = system_clock::now();
The above line is straight out of C++11.  Nothing new here.
auto diff = dt_now - dt;
Since dt_now and dt are both time_points based on system_clock, this is also straight out of C++11.  Arithmetic between the two time_points is well defined by C++11, and results in a duration with a precision of the finer of the two time_points (typically that of system_clock::time_point, which for me has a precision of microseconds).
std::cout << duration_cast<milliseconds>(diff).count() << " ms\n";
For me this is just a simple C++11 cast of microseconds to milliseconds.
-------------------------
In summary:  If the serial date type is nothing more than a time_point>>, then we get a great deal of interoperability with the C++11 time_point/duration facilities for free.  And with absolutely no loss in performance. We get at no cost serial date types and serial date_time types.  And the only invention needed is the field types, and the interaction between the invented field types, and the already standardized serial types.
Yes, we get a great deal of interoperability for free, for sure, but I 
worry that all the implicit casting will be an even larger debt.

Regards,
Anders Dalvander