[Python-Dev] PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed (original) (raw)

PJ Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Thu Apr 5 18:48:13 CEST 2012

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com>wrote:

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?

What's missing is that if you're using a monotonic clock for timeouts, then a monotonically-adjusted system clock can do that, subject to the polling frequency -- it does not break just because the system clock is set backwards; it simply loses time proportional to the frequency with which it is polled.

For timeout purposes in a single process, such a clock is useful. It just isn't suitable for benchmarks, or for interprocess coordination. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120405/5f96df5b/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list