I made std.time for Phobos, please review my code.

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 04:55:28 -0400, SHOO <zan77137 at nifty.com> wrote:

> Tango is great library for D1. I am Tango user and I am indebted to
> Tango well. But Tango has some probrems.
>
> - Tango's license is BSD lisence or AFL. This license is incompatible to
> Phobos's Boost license.
> - The specification is disregarded, for example Object.dispose and  
> string.
> - Tango supports only D1
> - In particular, deep regret is to have split resources of D into two
> halves.
>
> If possible, I want to migrate to D2. And I want to be separated from
> Tango. However, some functions are insufficient for Phobos compared with
> Tango.
> The std.date module is one of the list of dissatisfaction to Phobos.
> I summarize my (and some of Japanese users's) opinion following:
>
> - I want to handle it as another thing for the time and the time span.
> - I want a more structural class for time operating.
> - std.date is a bit buggy...
>
> By these reasons, I made std.time module as the first step of the
> contribution for Phobos.

I like what you've done.  It's very similar to what was done in Tango.  I  
hate to ask this, but I just want to verify that you did not base your  
code on Tango, especially since you have used Tango.  I was planning to  
implement a Time system for Tango that mimics Tango's design, if that is  
what you have done, I think that's perfectly legit.  Basically, I want to  
verify that you rewrote all your implementation from scratch.

More comments:

I'd like accessors for seconds/milliseconds/etc from Span.

I'm not sure I like the Clocks structure.  Why have a separate Span that  
is in terms of some arbitrary OS resolution?  Can you give an example of  
why I'd want to use Clocks instead of Span?

-Steve