[Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function? (original) (raw)

Kristján Valur Jónsson kristjan at ccpgames.com
Mon Mar 19 10:07:59 CET 2012

Do you really want to add an obscure Boolean flag to the function just so that python can warn you that perhaps your platform is so old and so weird that Python can't guarantee that the performance measurements are to a certain undefined quality?

Please note, that the function makes no claims to the resolution or precision of the timer involved. Only that it moves only forward. It is therefore completely and utterly redundant to add a "strict" value, because we would only be behave "strictly" according to an undefined specification.

K

-----Original Message----- From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames.com at python.org [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames.com at python.org] On Behalf Of Lennart Regebro Sent: 15. mars 2012 04:44 To: Matt Joiner Cc: Python Dev Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 02:58, Matt Joiner <anacrolix at gmail.com> wrote:

Victor, I think that steady can always be monotonic, there are time sources enough to ensure this on the platforms I am aware of. Strict in this sense refers to not being adjusted forward, i.e. CLOCKMONOTONIC vs CLOCKMONOTONICRAW.

Non monotonicity of this call should be considered a bug. Strict would be used for profiling where forward leaps would disqualify the timing.

This makes sense to me.

//Lennart

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/kristjan%40ccpgames.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list