[Python-Dev] PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed
pje at telecommunity.com
Thu Apr 5 18:48:13 CEST 2012
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com>wrote:
> 2012/4/5 PJ Eby <pje at telecommunity.com>:
> >> More details why it's hard to define such function and why I dropped
> >> it from the PEP.
> >> If someone wants to propose again such function ("monotonic or
> >> fallback to system" clock), two issues should be solved:
> >> - name of the function
> >> - description of the function
> > Maybe I missed it, but did anyone ever give a reason why the fallback
> > couldn't be to Steven D'Aprano's monotonic wrapper algorithm over the
> > clock? (Given a suitable minimum delta.) That function appeared to me
> > provide a sufficiently monotonic clock for timeout purposes, if nothing
> > else.
> Did you read the following section of the PEP?
> Did I miss something? If yes, could you write a patch for the PEP please?
What's missing is that if you're using a monotonic clock for timeouts, then
a monotonically-adjusted system clock can do that, subject to the polling
frequency -- it does not break just because the system clock is set
backwards; it simply loses time proportional to the frequency with which it
For timeout purposes in a single process, such a clock is useful. It just
isn't suitable for benchmarks, or for interprocess coordination.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev