On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 23:14, Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Wait, what? >> I already thought we, several days ago, decided that "steady" was a >> *terrible* name, and that monotonic should *not* fall back to the >> system clock. > > Copy of a more recent Guido's email: > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/118322.html > "Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I believe these functions > should have very loose guarantees, and instead just cater to common > use cases -- availability of a timer with minimal fuss is usually more > important than the guarantees. So forget the idea about one version > that falls back to time.time() and another that doesn't -- just always > fall back to time.time(), which is (almost) always better than > failing.
I disagree with this, mainly for the reason that there isn't any good names for these functions. "hopefully_monotonic()" doesn't really cut it for me. :-) I also don't see how it's hard to guarantee that monotonic() is monotonic. //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/archive%40mail-archive.com
