[Python-Dev] Issue #10278 -- why not just an attribute? (original) (raw)
Jim J. Jewett jimjjewett at gmail.com
Tue Mar 20 04:51:35 CET 2012
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] cpython: Issue #10278: Add an optional strict argument to time.steady(), False by default
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Issue #10278 -- why not just an attribute?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117762.html Georg Brandl posted:
+ If available, a monotonic clock is used. By default, if strict is False, + the function falls back to another clock if the monotonic clock failed or is + not available. If strict is True, raise an :exc:
OSErroron error or + :exc:NotImplementedErrorif no monotonic clock is available.
This is not clear to me. Why wouldn't it raise OSError on error even with strict=False? Please clarify which exception is raised in which case.
Passing strict as an argument seems like overkill since it will always be meaningless on some (most?) platforms. Why not just use a function attribute? Those few users who do care can check the value of time.steady.monotonic before calling time.steady(); exceptions raised will always be whatever the clock actually raises.
-jJ
--
If there are still threading problems with my replies, please email me with details, so that I can try to resolve them. -jJ
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] cpython: Issue #10278: Add an optional strict argument to time.steady(), False by default
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Issue #10278 -- why not just an attribute?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]