[Python-Dev] PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed (original) (raw)
PJ Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Thu Apr 5 04:23:51 CEST 2012
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Apr 4, 2012 7:28 PM, "Victor Stinner" <victor.stinner at gmail.com> wrote:
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 system clock? (Given a suitable minimum delta.) That function appeared to me to provide a sufficiently monotonic clock for timeout purposes, if nothing else. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120404/c6f32d24/attachment.html>
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]