On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 02:51, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Before posting a first draft of the PEP 418 to python-dev, I have some
questions.
== Naming: time.monotonic() or time.steady()? ==
The clock is monotonic by all reasonable definitions of monotonic (ie
they
On 14 April 2012 06:41, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
A clock can be accurate in measuring
duration even though it is not accurate in measuring the point in
time. [It's hard to see how the opposite could be true.]
Pedantic point: A clock that is stepped (say, by NTP) is
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 02:51:09 +0200
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
time.monotonic() does not fallback to the system clock anymore, it is
now always monotonic.
Then just call it monotonic :-)
I prefer steady over monotonic because the steady property is what
users really
I prefer steady over monotonic because the steady property is what
users really expect from a monotonic clock. A monotonic but not
steady clock may be useless.
steady is ambiguous IMO. It can only be steady in reference to
another clock - but which one ? (real time presumably, but perhaps
Hi,
Before posting a first draft of the PEP 418 to python-dev, I have some
questions.
== Naming: time.monotonic() or time.steady()? ==
I like the steady name but different people complained that the
steady name should not be used if the function falls back to the
system clock or if the clock is
Executive summary:
On naming, how about CLOCK_METRONOMIC? Also, is_adjusted is
better, until the API is expanded to provide when and how much
information about past adjustments.
On the glossary, (1) precision, accuracy, and resolution mean
different things for points in time and for durations;
