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

Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn zooko at zooko.com
Fri Mar 23 17:55:17 CET 2012

I merged the two functions into one function: time.steady(strict=False).

time.steady() should be monotonic most of the time, but may use a fallback. time.steady(strict=True) fails with OSError or NotImplementedError if reading the monotonic clock failed or if no monotonic clock is available.

If someone wants time.steady(strict=False), then why don't they just continue to use time.time()?

I want time.steady(strict=True), and I'm glad you're providing it and I'm willing to use it this way, although it is slightly annoying because "time.steady(strict=True)" really means "time.steady(i_really_mean_it=True)". Else, I would have used "time.time()".

I am aware of a large number of use cases for a steady clock (event scheduling, profiling, timeouts), and a large number of uses cases for a "NTP-respecting wall clock" clock (calendaring, displaying to a user, timestamping). I'm not aware of any use case for "steady if implemented, else wall-clock", and it sounds like a mistake to me.

Regards,

Zooko

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list