March 28, 2012
4:39 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
That means choosing a name for the version that falls back to time() if monotonic() isn't available so it can be safely substituted for time.time() without having to worry about platform compatibility implications.
What's wrong with "time.time()" again? As documented in http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/time.html it makes no guarantees, and specifically there is *no* guarantee that it will ever behave *badly*<wink/>. Of course, we'll have to guarantee that, if a badly-behaved clock is available, users can get access to it, so call that time._time().