Main drawback is the need for timestamps. Most crontab files or expressions I've seen didn't have them.
[1] https://docs.rs/cronexpr/latest/cronexpr/#why-does-the-crate...
Assuming UTC for tz is not weird and cron users expect it,
I guess why even support this specific syntax if the crons need to be edited to fit how this code expects them? There may have been better options if you were going full green field.
Good work though!
That would definitely be weird and unexpected. My crons are interpreted with respect to my system's configured time zone, which seems way more expected than just using UTC.
Taking a datetime and just assuming it's UTC is often a mistake. It's why the TC39 Temporal proposal (overhauling datetimes for Javascript) won't let you silently do it.
1. Optional Timezone.
2. Second-level precision (perhaps feature flags are more suitable here)
It just falls out my first requirements so I don't support it. Being too generic is a common source of failure in my experience.
As a library developer I have my opinion on how things should be done and provide the default fits that mind :D
In cronexpr, there is no requirement for a timestamp until you'd like to find the next scheduled time, and thus you need to provide a related point.
To decouple with certain datetime lib, I made a `MakeTimestamp` struct which provides multiple constructors. Later, I found it somehow like a function overload :D