for loops longer on a P-IV???
bokr at oz.net
Thu Aug 1 08:51:01 CEST 2002
On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:15:05 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
>> This is our wait function:
>> def wait(Seconds):
>> loop = Seconds * 50
>> for i in range (0,loop):
>> if win32ui.PumpWaitingMessages(0,-1):
>> raise exceptions.SystemExit
How about just noting the time that the wait should expire (now+Seconds
if you don't have another reference than "now" to compute an end time from),
and looping while "now" is less than that? E.g., (untested)
from time import clock
while clock() < endTime:
Then call it with an actual end time. To use it for a delta wait from
the current instant, just call waitUntil(clock()+delta).
But if you want to schedule things accurately, don't do that. Instead,
establish a time origin once, e.g., with t0 = tNext = clock() at the
start of a periodic sequence. Then tNext+=delta; waitUntil(tNext) should give
you control that doesn't drift wrt to the clock reference, though it will jitter.
>> A 10 second wait on our P-IV seems to take 15 seconds [....]
>I'm not certain what you are actually expecting, but the code you
>have here is effectively the following for a "10 second" delay:
> do this 500 times:
> wait at least 20 milliseconds
> do some other stuff that takes an undefined amount of time
>It looks like you think this should take 500*20 milliseconds
>to complete, but there are at least two sources of additional
>delay -- the "at least" part, and the "other stuff" part.
>You are actually accumulating error and the finer the period of
>the sleep, the more inaccurate the overall time will be.
>If you're looking for accuracy in timing, this is not the way
>to go about it.
I think waitUntil should improve it.
More information about the Python-list