RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 14 18:42:41 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117647.html

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:16, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> That's a rather awful name.  time.time() is *the* real time.
>
> time.monotonic(fallback=False) would be a better API.

I think calling the function "monotonic" isn't really a good name if
it's not always monotonic.

  time.monotonic(fallback=False)

Really just means

  time.monotonic(monotonic=False)

And

  time.monotonic(strict=True)

Really means

  time.monotonic(i_really_mean_it=True)

This is potentially confusing. Therefore

  time.clock()
  time.time()
  time.realtime()
  time.wallclock()

Are all better options if there is a flag to switch if it's monotonic or not.

Since time.clock() apparently can mean different things on different
platforms because of it's use of the C-API, we can't use that.
I'm not sure why time.time() would differ from time.realtime().
time.time() is per definition not monotonic, but

  time.time(monotonic=True)

is maybe a possibility?

//Lennart
//Lennart

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117647.html below:

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