On 27/03/2012 18:45, Victor Stinner wrote:
[snip...]
Straying from that is only going to create confusion. Besides that, the
one use case for "time.steady()" that you give (benchmarking) is better
served by a clock that follows the C++0x definition.
I added a time.hires() clock to the PEP for the benchmarking/profiling
use case. This function is not always available and so a program has
to fallback manually to another clock. I don't think that it is an
issue: Python programs already have to choose between time.clock() and
time.time() depending on the OS (e.g. timeit module and pybench
program).
It is this always-having-to-manually-fallback-depending-on-os that I was
hoping your new functionality would avoid. Is time.try_monotonic()
suitable for this usecase?
Michael
As well, certain
kinds of scheduling/timeouts would be better implemented with the C++0x
definition for "steady" rather than the "monotonic" one and vice-versa.
Sorry, I don't understand. Which kind of scheduling/timeouts?
The PEP is still a draft (work-in-progress).
Victor
_______________________________________________
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/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk
--
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
May you do good and not evil
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
-- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
_______________________________________________
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
