Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120406/4460d82f/attachment.html below:
<p>I'd like to veto wall clock because to me that's the clock on my wall, i.e. local time. Otherwise I like the way this thread is going.</p>
<p>--Guido van Rossum (sent from Android phone)</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 6, 2012 4:57 AM, "Paul Moore" <<a href="mailto:p.f.moore@gmail.com">p.f.moore@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote">On 6 April 2012 11:12, Steven D'Aprano <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve@pearwood.info" target="_blank">steve@pearwood.info</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Apr 5, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
2. Those who think that "monotonic clock" means a clock that never jumps,<br>
and that runs at a rate approximating the rate of real time. This is a<br>
very useful kind of clock to have! It is what C++ now calls a "steady<br>
clock". It is what all the major operating systems provide.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
All clocks run at a rate approximating the rate of real time. That is very<br>
close to the definition of the word "clock" in this context. All clocks<br>
have flaws in that approximation, and really those flaws are the whole<br>
point of access to distinct clock APIs. Different applications can cope<br>
with different flaws.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I think that this is incorrect.<br>
<br>
py> time.clock(); time.sleep(10); time.clock()<br>
0.41<br>
0.41<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Blame Python's use of CPU time in clock() on Unix for that. On Windows:</div><div><br></div><div>>>> time.clock(); time.sleep(10); time.clock()</div><div>14.879754156329385</div>
<div>24.879591008462793</div><div><br></div><div>That''s a backward compatibility issue, though - I'd be arguing that time.clock() is the best name for "normally the right clock for interval, benchmark or timeout uses as long as you don't care about oddities like suspend" otherwise. Given that this name is taken, I'd argue for time.wallclock. I'm not familiar enough with the terminology to know what to expect from terms like monotonic, steady, raw and the like.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Paul.</div></div><br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Python-Dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Python-Dev@python.org">Python-Dev@python.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev" target="_blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org" target="_blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
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