[Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function? (original) (raw)
Nadeem Vawda nadeem.vawda at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 17:47:24 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 ]
A summary of the discussion so far, as I've understood it:
We should have one monotonic/steady timer function, using the sources described in Victor's original post.
By default, it should fall back to time.time if a better source is not available, but there should be a flag that can disable this fallback for users who really need a monotonic/steady time source.
Proposed names for the function:
- monotonic
- steady_clock
- wallclock
- realtime
Proposed names for the flag controlling fallback behavior:
- strict (=False)
- fallback (=True)
- monotonic (=False)
For the function name, I think monotonic() and steady_clock() convey the purpose of the function much better than the other two; the term "wallclock" is actively misleading, and "realtime" seems ambiguous.
For the flag name, I'm -1 on "monotonic" -- it sounds like a flag to decide whether to use a monotonic time source always or never, while it actually decides between "always" and "sometimes". I think "strict" is nicer than "fallback", but I'm fine with either one.
Cheers, Nadeem
- 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 ]