On 22/10/2009 8:52 AM, Scott Dial wrote: > Curt Hagenlocher wrote: >> But it makes more sense to >> understand why someone chose to implement time.clock() on Windows the >> way they did -- this seems very broken to me, and I think it should be >> changed. > > Some SVN detective work takes this to all the way back to r7713 > (1997-04-02). The original implementation checked by Guido and > attributed to Mark Hammond. So, we should ask Mark why he did that. The thread seems to be at http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/be32478a4b8e77b6/816d6228119a3474 (although I do seem to recall more discussion of the patch which I currently can't find). I'd be very surprised if any applications rely on the fact that each process starts counting at zero, so if someone can come up with a high-res counter which avoids that artifact I'd expect it could be used. Cheers, Mark
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4