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)
