std::chrono duration formatting is lacking floating point specifiers

[DanielaE]

Consider this test code:

typedef std::chrono::duration<float, std::milli> fms;
EXPECT_EQ("1.234ms", fmt::format("{}", fms(1.234)));
typedef std::chrono::duration<double, std::milli> dms;
EXPECT_EQ("1.234ms", fmt::format("{}", dms(1.234)));
EXPECT_EQ("1.2ms", fmt::format("{:.2}", dms(1.234)));

The first and second test passes, i.e. floating point representation types in std::chrono::duration work in general. The last fails by returning .2 rather than formatting the given time quantity of 1.2345 ms to the given precision. There is seemingly no application of floating point specifiers possible.

[DanielaE]

I've implemented some stuff to handle the precision specification, but this is probably a dead end.
DanielaE@1cec292

[HowardHinnant]

Here is one way to address this:

using secondsm4 = std::chrono::duration<long, std::ratio<1, 10'000>>;
fmt::format("{}", dms{floor<secondsm4>(dms{1.234})});  // 1.2ms

[DanielaE]

Right, in this case (static precision, static formatting string), the workaround of shifting the precision part of the formatting process onto the user certainly works. In the general case it doesn't and maintenance in non-trivial codebases with the prospect of engineering changes might become a nightmare. After all, {fmt}'s added value and most noble goal is relieving users from the burden of formatting.
I have no problem if chrono's output stream operator doesn't handle this (at least, this is my conclusion after reading it's specification). It only means that {fmt} should take this into consideration and possibly not rely on chrono's facilities in all formatting scenarios.

[vitaut]

Supporting precision for duration types with floating-point representation makes a lot of sense to me.

this is probably a dead end

@DanielaE why do you think so?

[DanielaE]

Well, I am not sure about the direction of the implementation of this feature. I am glad that you support the idea. My experimental stuff does a consistent parsing so far, but it's totally unclear to me on how to proceed from there. I've learned from Howards comment that backing the formatting process on chrono's output streaming operator is not the way to go in this case. Currently I envision an implementation which checks the formatting string for chrono formatting specifiers and defers to chrono-based formatting in this case with exactly it's features and limitations. If there are none, {fmt}'s facilities are superior and implementing chrono::duration formatting is trivial as I've shown in my Meeting C++ 2018 presentation. Taking such a route makes my experiment obsolete: therefore the 'dead end'.

[vitaut]

p1361r0 proposes support for fill, width, and alignment before the main strftime-like specifiers:

format-spec     ::= [[fill] align] [width] [conversion-spec [chrono-specs]]
chrono-specs    ::= chrono-spec [chrono-specs]
chrono-spec     ::= literal-char | conversion-spec
literal-char    ::= <a character other than '{' or '}'>
conversion-spec ::= '%' [modifier] type

We could easily incorporate precision there:

format-spec     ::= [[fill] align] [width] ['.' precision] [conversion-spec [chrono-specs]]

[DanielaE]

This makes lots of sense to me. I like it a lot.

I've been studying the current state of chrono formatting and I'll probably revoke the 'dead end' assessment of my experimental code. So I will go and try to implement the full precision functionality - hopefully during the upcoming weekend.

[DanielaE]

@vitaut Any opinion on DanielaE@f859515 before I open a PR? In this implementation, the precision applies to the numeric formatting in absence of [conversion-spec [chrono-specs]].

[DanielaE]

DanielaE@7571832 is a bit more refined with some preparation for wchar_t-formatting (or other character types).

[vitaut]

Looks good to me. Please open a PR and I'll comment there with some minor suggestions.

[DanielaE]

done

[DanielaE]

Expect a follow-up to keep track with Howard's date which added %q and %Q as new formatting specifications.

[DanielaE]

@HowardHinnant, where would you put the precision specifier into the %q field? Something like %.3q (static precision) and %.{}q (dynamic precision)? Or something easier to parse?

[HowardHinnant]

I'm really not sure, but am guessing something like "{:.3%Q %q}". The .3 would modify the %Q (the value), but not %q (the units).

[DanielaE]

Thinking about it, this is a bit underspecified so far imho in case of multiple %Q fields. Therefore I propose to define that there is at most one single common precision specifier allowed, e.g. {:.{} SI requires '%Q %q' rather than '%Q%q'}. In other words: there is at most one set of formatting specifiers which affects the rendering of all fields within the same replacement field in the same way.

[vitaut]

there is at most one set of formatting specifiers which affects the rendering of all fields within the same replacement field in the same way.

Seems reasonable.

[DanielaE]

Is implemented now - enjoy 😄

[vitaut]

I guess this issue can be closed now.