(original) (raw)
I'd like to veto wall clock because to me that's the clock on my wall, i.e. local time. Otherwise I like the way this thread is going.
--Guido van Rossum (sent from Android phone)
On Apr 6, 2012 4:57 AM, "Paul Moore" <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 April 2012 11:12, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
On Apr 5, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
I think that this is incorrect.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.
py> time.clock(); time.sleep(10); time.clock()
0.41
0.41Blame Python's use of CPU time in clock() on Unix for that. On Windows:>>> time.clock(); time.sleep(10); time.clock()14.87975415632938524.879591008462793That''s a backward compatibility issue, though - I'd be arguing that time.clock() is the best name for "normally the right clock for interval, benchmark or timeout uses as long as you don't care about oddities like suspend" otherwise. Given that this name is taken, I'd argue for time.wallclock. I'm not familiar enough with the terminology to know what to expect from terms like monotonic, steady, raw and the like.Paul.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org