(original) (raw)
Thank you for your veto. Still, again for the sake of keeping track of things and such, there is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall\_clock\_time and also my original suggestion: http://bugs.python.org/issue10278
In the end, the world shall be ruled by the nomenclaturists.
K
Fr�: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames.com@python.org \[python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames.com@python.org\] fyrir h�nd Guido van Rossum \[guido@python.org\]
Sent: 6\. apr�l 2012 15:42
To: Paul Moore
Cc: Python-Dev
Efni: Re: \[Python-Dev\] this is why we shouldn't call it a "monotonic clock" (was: PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed)
Sent: 6\. apr�l 2012 15:42
To: Paul Moore
Cc: Python-Dev
Efni: Re: \[Python-Dev\] this is why we shouldn't call it a "monotonic clock" (was: PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed)
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
0.41
Blame Python's use of CPU time in clock() on Unix for that. On Windows:
>>> time.clock(); time.sleep(10); time.clock()14.87975415632938524.879591008462793
That''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