Re: [Python-Dev] Issue #10278 -- why not just an attribute?
Jim J. Jewett wrote: > Passing strict as an argument seems like overkill since it will always > be meaningless on some (most?) platforms. A keyword argument that gets passed as a constant in the caller is usually poor API. Why not have two different functions? Neil ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Issue #10278 -- why not just an attribute?
2012/3/20 Jim J. Jewett : > > > In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117762.html > Georg Brandl posted: > >>> + If available, a monotonic clock is used. By default, if *strict* is >>> False, >>> + the function falls back to another clock if the monotonic clock failed >>> or is >>> + not available. If *strict* is True, raise an :exc:`OSError` on error or >>> + :exc:`NotImplementedError` if no monotonic clock is available. > >> This is not clear to me. Why wouldn't it raise OSError on error even with >> strict=False? Please clarify which exception is raised in which case. > > Passing strict as an argument seems like overkill since it will always > be meaningless on some (most?) platforms. Why not just use a function > attribute? Those few users who do care can check the value of > time.steady.monotonic before calling time.steady(); exceptions raised > will always be whatever the clock actually raises. The clock is chosen at runtime. You might use a different clock at each call. In most cases, Python should chose a clock at the first call and reuse it for next calls. For example, on Linux the following clocks are tested: - clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONONOTIC_RAW) - clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONONOTIC) - gettimeofday() - ftime() 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/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Issue #10278 -- why not just an attribute?
In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117762.html Georg Brandl posted: >> + If available, a monotonic clock is used. By default, if *strict* is >> False, >> + the function falls back to another clock if the monotonic clock failed >> or is >> + not available. If *strict* is True, raise an :exc:`OSError` on error or >> + :exc:`NotImplementedError` if no monotonic clock is available. > This is not clear to me. Why wouldn't it raise OSError on error even with > strict=False? Please clarify which exception is raised in which case. Passing strict as an argument seems like overkill since it will always be meaningless on some (most?) platforms. Why not just use a function attribute? Those few users who do care can check the value of time.steady.monotonic before calling time.steady(); exceptions raised will always be whatever the clock actually raises. -jJ -- If there are still threading problems with my replies, please email me with details, so that I can try to resolve them. -jJ ___ 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
