Do you really want to add an obscure Boolean flag to the function just so that python can warn you that perhaps your platform is so old and so weird that Python can't guarantee that the performance measurements are to a certain _undefined_ quality?
Please note, that the function makes no claims to the resolution or precision of the timer involved. Only that it moves only forward. It is therefore completely and utterly redundant to add a "strict" value, because we would only be behave "strictly" according to an _undefined specification_. K -----Original Message----- From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames....@python.org [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames....@python.org] On Behalf Of Lennart Regebro Sent: 15. mars 2012 04:44 To: Matt Joiner Cc: Python Dev Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function? On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 02:58, Matt Joiner <anacro...@gmail.com> wrote: > Victor, I think that steady can always be monotonic, there are time > sources enough to ensure this on the platforms I am aware of. Strict > in this sense refers to not being adjusted forward, i.e. > CLOCK_MONOTONIC vs CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW. > > Non monotonicity of this call should be considered a bug. Strict would > be used for profiling where forward leaps would disqualify the timing. This makes sense to me. //Lennart _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/kristjan%40ccpgames.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
