RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 14 06:42:24 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117593.html

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Michael Foord
<fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On 13 Mar 2012, at 16:57, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I added two functions to the time module in Python 3.3: wallclock()
>> and monotonic(). I'm unable to explain the difference between these
>> two functions, even if I wrote them :-) wallclock() is suppose to be
>> more accurate than time() but has an unspecified starting point.
>> monotonic() is similar except that it is monotonic: it cannot go
>> backward. monotonic() may not be available or fail whereas wallclock()
>> is available/work, but I think that the two functions are redundant.
>>
>> I prefer to keep only monotonic() because it is not affected by system
>> clock update and should help to fix issues on NTP update in functions
>> implementing a timeout.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
>
> I am in the middle of adding a feature to unittest that involves timing of individual tests. I want the highest resolution cross platform measure of wallclock time - and time.wallclock() looked ideal. If monotonic may not exist or can fail why would that be better?
>

Isn't the highest resolution cross platform measure of "wallclock"
time spelled "time.clock()"? Its docs say "this is the function to use
for benchmarking Python or timing algorithms", and it would be a shame
to add and teach a new function rather than improving clock()'s
definition.

Jeffrey

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117593.html below:

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