Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-April/118602.html below:

[Python-Dev] this is why we shouldn't call it a "monotonic clock" (was: PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed)

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] this is why we shouldn't call it a "monotonic clock" (was: PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed)
• Next message: [Python-Dev] this is why we shouldn't call it a "monotonic clock" (was: PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Just to clarify my previous post.

It seems clear that benchmarking and timeout logic would benefit from a clock that cannot be adjusted by NTP.

I'm unclear on whether time.sleep() will be based on the same clock so that timeouts and sleeps are on the same basis.

For scheduling logic (such as the sched module), I would think that NTP adjusted time would be what you want.

I'm also unclear on the interactions between components implemented with different clocks
(for example, if my logs show three seconds between events and a 10-second time-out exception occurs, is that confusing)?


Raymond

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] this is why we shouldn't call it a "monotonic clock" (was: PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed)
• Next message: [Python-Dev] this is why we shouldn't call it a "monotonic clock" (was: PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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