Tracking Issue for duration_constructors

[djc]

Feature gate: #![feature(duration_constructors)]

This is a tracking issue for supporting larger unit sizes for Duration constructors.

Public API

Add the following constructors to Duration:

• Duration::from_weeks()
• Duration::from_days()
• Duration::from_hours()
• Duration::from_mins()

Steps / History

• Implementation: core: add Duration constructors #120307
• Final comment period (FCP)[^1]
• Stabilization PR

[the8472]

Similar things were previously proposed in #47097, #52556
They were intentionally omitted in RFC 1040 because leap seconds complicate things to make time-calculations non-trivial.

Imo it requires some significant discussion to add these. A PR and a tracking issue without context are insufficient.

[djc]

Thanks for adding this context. I was fairly certain that this would have been discussed before, but searching the issue tracker (for open issues) didn't turn up any existing discussion. I think it's okay to have this discussion here/now?

From RFC 1040:

This proposal does not, at this time, include mechanisms for instantiating a Duration from weeks, days, hours or minutes, because there are caveats to each of those units. In particular, the existence of leap seconds means that it is only possible to properly understand them relative to a particular starting point.

It goes on to quote JodaTime documentation; I'll quote the current version of this:

A period in Joda-Time represents a period of time defined in terms of fields, for example, 3 years 5 months 2 days and 7 hours. This differs from a duration in that it is inexact in terms of milliseconds. A period can only be resolved to an exact number of milliseconds by specifying the instant (including chronology and time zone) it is relative to.

Note that the RFC is from 2015 and the latest discussion in #52556 is from 2018 so I feel like revisiting this decision isn't all that crazy.

Personally I feel this distinction is well-established in the Rust ecosystem at this point, and there's a clear interplay between SystemTime (grounded in real-world time) and Duration (which presents a pure duration). As such, I personally don't feel like leap seconds are a good reason to avoid adding these. I would also argue that both chrono and time are very popular libraries in the ecosystem, and both have made these available seemingly without many ill effects.

IMO each of these constructors have a clear unambiguous meaning in the context of a Duration. If we want, we could of course add some documentation that leap seconds are not considered.

Note: I happen to be the current chrono maintainer, so I have some background in these things.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

We may want to consider as part of stabilization whether these could "just" (or in addition should be) associated constants. e.g., Duration::WEEK * 5 == Duration::from_weeks(5). We have paired constants for all existing constructor functions: millisecond, second, and nanosecond.

[djc]

We may want to consider as part of stabilization whether these could "just" (or in addition should be) associated constants. e.g., Duration::WEEK * 5 == Duration::from_weeks(5). We have paired constants for all existing constructor functions: millisecond, second, and nanosecond.

I'm happy to add them, but I'd be disappointed to remove the new constructors in favor of these.

[Victor-N-Suadicani]

Just thought about this and found this issue :)

I prefer the constructors to associated constants.

Have you considered making the constructors take u32 instead of u64, so they don't need to worry about overflow and hence panicking? You lose the option of making a duration longer than u32::MAX * 60 seconds using the from_mins constructor, but that's like 8171 years, so maybe it's okay? 😅

(PS: I think the panic message in from_weeks mistakenly says from_days)