[Python-Dev] this is why we shouldn't call it a "monotonic clock" (was: PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed)

[Steven D'Aprano]

Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:

>> 2. Those who think that "monotonic clock" means a clock that never jumps,
>> and that runs at a rate approximating the rate of real time. This is a
>> very useful kind of clock to have! It is what C++ now calls a "steady
>> clock". It is what all the major operating systems provide.
> 
> All clocks run at a rate approximating the rate of real time.  That is very
> close to the definition of the word "clock" in this context.  All clocks
> have flaws in that approximation, and really those flaws are the whole
> point of access to distinct clock APIs.  Different applications can cope
> with different flaws.

I think that this is incorrect.

py> time.clock(); time.sleep(10); time.clock()
0.41
0.41




-- 
Steven