[Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Wed Mar 14 18:21:30 CET 2012
+1 for steady().
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Matt Joiner <anacrolix at gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW the name is quite important, because these kind of timings are
> quite important so I think it's worth the effort.
>> - By default, it should fall back to time.time if a better source is
>> not available, but there should be a flag that can disable this
>> fallback for users who really *need* a monotonic/steady time source.
> Agreed. As Guido mentioned, some platforms might not be able to access
> to hardware times, so falling back should be the default, lest unaware
> users trigger unexpected errors.
>> - Proposed names for the function:
>> * monotonic
> Doesn't indicate that the timing is also prevented from leaping forward.
>> * steady_clock
> I think the use of clock might infer CPU time on doc-skimming user.
> "clock" is overloaded here.
>> For the flag name, I'm -1 on "monotonic" -- it sounds like a flag to
>> decide whether to use a monotonic time source always or never, while
>> it actually decides between "always" and "sometimes". I think "strict"
>> is nicer than "fallback", but I'm fine with either one.
> I agree, "strict" fits in with existing APIs.
> I think time.hardware(), and time.steady() are still okay here.
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
More information about the Python-Dev