On 24 June 2015 at 21:38, Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:03:38 +0200 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Don't you have an additional namespace for micropython-specific features?
I treat it as a good sign that it's ~8th message in the thread and it's only the first time we get a hint that we should get out with our stuff into a separate namespace ;-).
We hadn't previously gotten to the fact that part of your motivation was helping folks learn the intricacies of low level fixed width time measurement, though. That's actually a really cool idea - HC11 assembly programming and TI C5420 DSP programming are still two of my favourite things I've ever done, and it would be nice if folks could more easily start exploring the mindset of the embedded microprocessor world without having to first deal with the incidental complexity of emulators or actual embedded hardware (even something like programming an Arduino directly is more hassle than remote controlling one from a Raspberry Pi or PC). Unfortunately, I can't think of a good alternative name that isn't ambiguous at the CPython layer - embedded CPython is very different from an embedded microprocessor, utime is taken, and microtime is confusable with microseconds. I'm tempted to suggest calling it "qtime", and using TI's Q notation to denote the formats of numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_%28number_format%29 That would conflict with your notion of making the APIs agnostic as to the exact bitwidth used, though, as well as with the meaning of the "q" prefix in qmath: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/qmath Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia