Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm still a little fuzzy on *why* it shouldn't count as a monotonic >> clock. > > So are the people who say it shouldn't count (unless you're speaking > of the specific implementation on Unix systems, which can go backward > if the admin or NTP decides it should be so). The fact that the clock is not monotonic is a pretty good reason for it not to count as monotonic. I don't think there's anything fuzzy about that. > I think they are in > general mistaking their use case for a general specification, that's > all. I'm sorry, am I missing something here? What use case are you talking about? > Even Glyph cited "what other people seem to think" in supporting > the usage where "monotonic" implies "high quality" in some informal > sense, although he does have a spec for what high quality means, and > AIUI an API for it in Twisted. Who are these people who think monotonic is a synonym for "high quality"? Why should we pander to their confusion at the cost of those who do understand the difference between monotonic and high quality? > I think we should just accept that "monotonic" is in more or less > common use as a synonym for "high quality", and warn *our* users that > the implementers of such clocks may be working to a different spec. I > think the revised glossary's description of "monotonic" does that > pretty well. Do I understand correctly that you think it is acceptable to call something monotonic regardless of whether or not it actually is monotonic? If not, I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting here. -- Steven
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