[Python-Dev] PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed (original) (raw)
Victor Stinner victor.stinner at gmail.com
Thu Apr 5 12:34:27 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 ]
2012/4/5 PJ Eby <pje at telecommunity.com>:
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.
Did you read the following section of the PEP? http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0418/#working-around-operating-system-bugs
Did I miss something? If yes, could you write a patch for the PEP please?
Victor
- 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 ]