On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:17 PM Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >> I don't think we should include byte-width unless we have a concrete >> use-case (it can be added later, using 8 Bytes as the default if not set). >> > I'm okay with only allowing one today. I wonder whether we should declare > it now and only allow 8? > I could go either way, it has some benefits for forward compatibility I suppose, but on the other hand YAGNI, if you feel strongly, I'm ok including it. However, the more optional fields we have for a specific enum value, makes me lean more towards a new type instead of just an enum. > > >> >> Comment below on equivalences, is that I don't fully understand this. >> > > I don't either :) > > "Unix time numbers are repeated in the second immediately following a > positive leap second. The Unix time number 915148800.50 is thus > ambiguous: it can refer either to the instant in the middle of the leap > second, or to the instant one second later, half a second after midnight > UTC." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time#Leap_seconds > > If that's the case, what does the comment in the format mean exactly when > you say "unix time excluding leap seconds"? I don't really understand what > a duration has to do with unix time but my understanding is unix time also > respects leap seconds typically which means what? I think that a duration > has to be understood in its relationship to addition to a timestamp to be > meaningful across systems, doesn't it? > The documentation, was mostly from a PR put together by Wes a while ago, maybe he can chime in. I think any modifications or previous statements on my part about the proposed time being interpreted separately from a timestamp don't make sense. I was assuming it was OK, to ignore the few seconds of inaccuracy that would occur with the interpretation. I think we would need yet another type if we wanted to measure time truly independently of reference timestamps. As you point out if a reference timestamp corresponds to when a leap-second is added then Duration/time-delta is always ambiguous. If the reference timestamp does't fall when a leap-second is added, it seems like the conversion is to "actual" elapsed seconds is fairly straight-forward. Could you elaborate on defining standard arithmetic conversions between time-delta/duration in seconds and other time unit (days, months, years) as part of the standard/format, I'm still not sure I understand what the use-case is here. Thanks, Micah
