[Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function? (original) (raw)
Victor Stinner victor.stinner at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 02:03:42 CET 2012
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I agree that it's better to have only one of these. I also think if we offer it we should always have it -- if none of the implementations are available, I guess you could fall back on returning time.time(), with some suitable offset so people don't think it is always the same. Maybe it could be called realtime()?
For a concrete use case, see for example: http://bugs.python.org/issue14222
I just wrote two patches, for the queue and threading modules, using time.monotonic() if available, with a fallback to time.time(). My patches call time.monotonic() to ensure that it doesn't fail with OSError.
I suppose that most libraries and programs will have to implement a similar fallback.
We may merge both functions with a flag to be able to disable the fallback. Example:
- time.realtime(): best-effort monotonic, with a fallback
- time.realtime(monotonic=True): monotonic, may raise OSError or NotImplementedError
Victor
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]