On Mar 23, 2012 6:25 PM, "Victor Stinner" <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > time.steady(strict=True) looks to be confusing for most people, some > of them don't understand the purpose of the flag and others don't like > a flag changing the behaviour of the function. > > I propose to replace time.steady(strict=True) by time.monotonic(). > That would avoid the need of an ugly NotImplementedError: if the OS > has no monotonic clock, time.monotonic() will just not exist. > > So we will have: > > - time.time(): realtime, can be adjusted by the system administrator > (manually) or automatically by NTP > - time.clock(): monotonic clock on Windows, CPU time on UNIX > - time.monotonic(): monotonic clock, its speed may or may not be > adjusted by NTP but it only goes forward, may raise an OSError > - time.steady(): monotonic clock or the realtime clock, depending on > what is available on the platform (use monotonic in priority). may be > adjusted by NTP or the system administrator, may go backward. > > time.steady() is something like: > > try: > return time.monotonic() > except (NotImplementError, OSError): > return time.time() > > time.time(), time.clock(), time.steady() are always available, whereas > time.monotonic() will not be available on some platforms. > > Victor
This seems like it should have been a PEP, or maybe should become a PEP.
_______________________________________________ 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