TL;DR; I'm in favor of moving forward with this declaration:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:38 AM Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I've been busy with several other things.
>
> A question, what about this alternative?
> enum IntervalUnit: short { YEAR_MONTH, DAY_TIME, DURATION }
> table Interval {
> unit: IntervalUnit;
> timeUnit: TimeUnit; // defined when using duration
> byteWidth: short; // defined when using duration
> }
>
I would lean towards this, and rename Duration to TimeDelta (I think
Duration might be confusing, especially given the questions below.
>
> Whether this or the other, I think we should probably declare the byteWidth
> of the value. Do you disagree?
>
I disagree, unless we want to support multiple byteWidths for
Duration/TimeDelta (and i would rather add this in later while choosing a
default of 8 bytes for it).
>
> Also, I don't think your definition is sufficient for a duration since it
> is related to epoch time which suggests that the duration is relative to a
> point in time. I think we have to declare the equivalences. Probably these:
>
> 1 century = 100 years
> 1 year = 12 months
> 1 month = 30 days
> 1 day = 24 hours
> 1 hour = 60 minutes
> 1 minute = 60 seconds
>
> Otherwise, there is no consistency around how the duration maps to a
> timestamp.
>
I think my use of Duration might have added confusion here. Could you
elaborate what you are proposing? I think the I feel uncomfortable doing
this conversion in the absence of a timestamp (if implementations want to
make these approximations that seems fine, but I don't think it should be
part of the standard), the fact that this is
>
>
