Turn duration consts into associated consts
As suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57391#issuecomment-459658236, I'm moving `Duration` constants (`SECOND`, `MILLISECOND` and so on; currently behind unstable `duration_constants` feature) into the `impl Duration` block.
cc @frewsxcv @SimonSapin
Duration div mul extras
Successor of #52556.
This PR adds the following `impl`s:
- `impl Mul<Duration> for u32` (to allow `10*SECOND` in addition to `SECOND*10`)
- `impl Mul<f64> for Duration` (to allow `2.5*SECOND` vs `2*SECOND + 500*MILLISECOND`)
- `impl Mul<Duration> for f64`
- `impl MulAssign<f64> for Duration`
- `impl Div<f64> for Duration`
- `impl DivAssign<f64> for Duration`
- `impl Div<Duration> for Duration` (`Output = f64`, can be useful e.g. for `duration/MINUTE`)
`f64` is chosen over `f32` to minimize rounding errors. (52 bits fraction precision vs `Duration`'s ~94 bit)
Now also the documentations of `subsec_millis`, `subsec_micros`, `as_millis` and `as_micros` make clear that the fractional nanosecond component is rounded down to whole units.
Add as_nanos function to Duration
Duration has historically lacked a way to get the actual number of nanoseconds it contained as a normal Rust type because u64 was of insufficient range, and f64 of insufficient precision. The u128 type solves both issues, so I propose adding an `as_nanos` function to expose the capability.
Improve `Debug` impl of `time::Duration`
Hi there!
For a long time now, I was getting annoyed by the derived `Debug` impl of `Duration`. Usually, I use `Duration` to either do quick'n'dirty benchmarking or measuring the time of some operation in general. The output of the derived Debug impl is hard to parse for humans: is { secs: 0, nanos: 968360102 } or { secs: 0, nanos 98507324 } longer?
So after running into the annoyance several times (sometimes building my own function to print the Duration properly), I decided to tackle this. Now the output looks like this:
```
Duration::new(1, 0) => 1s
Duration::new(1, 1) => 1.000000001s
Duration::new(1, 300) => 1.0000003s
Duration::new(1, 4000) => 1.000004s
Duration::new(1, 600000) => 1.0006s
Duration::new(1, 7000000) => 1.007s
Duration::new(0, 0) => 0ns
Duration::new(0, 1) => 1ns
Duration::new(0, 300) => 300ns
Duration::new(0, 4001) => 4.001µs
Duration::new(0, 600300) => 600.3µs
Duration::new(0, 7000000) => 7ms
```
Note that I implemented the formatting manually and didn't use floats. No information is "lost" when printing. So `Duration::new(123_456_789_000, 900_000_001)` prints as `123456789000.900000001s`.
~~This is not yet finished~~, but I wanted to open the PR now already in order to get some feedback (maybe everyone likes the derived impl).
### Still ToDo:
- [x] Respect precision ~~and width~~ parameter of the formatter (see [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/50364#issuecomment-386107107))
### Alternatives/Decisions
- Should large durations displayed in minutes, hours, days, ...? For now, I decided not to because the current formatting is close the how a `Duration` is stored. From this new `Debug` output, you can still easily see what the values of `secs` and `nanos` are. A formatting like `3h 27m 12s 9ms` might be more appropriate for a `Display` impl?
- Should this rather be a `Display` impl and should `Debug` be derived? Maybe this formatting is too fancy for `Debug`? In my opinion it's not and, as already mentioned, from the current format one can still very easily determine the values for `secs` and `nanos`.
- Whitespace between the number and the unit?
### Notes for reviewers
- ~~The combined diff sucks. Rather review both commits individually.~~
- ~~In the unit test, I am building my own type implementing `fmt::Write` to test the output. Maybe there is already something like that which I can use?~~
- My `Debug` impl block is marked as `#[stable(...)]`... but that's fine since the derived Debug impl was stable already, right?
---
~~Apart from the main change, I moved all `time` unit tests into the `tests` directory. All other `libcore` tests are there, so I guess it was simply an oversight. Prior to this change, the `time` tests weren't run, so I guess this is kind of a bug fix. If my `Debug` impl is rejected, I can of course just send the fix as PR.~~ (this was already merged in #50466)
Previously, the code would panic for high precision values. Now it
has the same behavior as printing normal floating point values: if
a high precision is specified, '0's are added.
Rounding is done like for printing floating point numbers. If the
first digit which isn't printed (due to the precision parameter) is
larger than '4', the number is rounded up.
