Terry Reedy wrote: > On 3/15/2012 5:27 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Matt Joiner<anacrolix at gmail.com> wrote: >>> +1. I now prefer time.monotonic(), no flags. >> >> Am I alone thinking that an adjective is an odd choice for a function >> name? > > I would normally agree, but in this case, it is a function of a module > whose short name names what the adjective is modifying. I expect that > this will normally be called with the module name. > >> I think monotonic_clock or monotonic_time would be a better option. > > time.monotonic_time seems redundant. Agreed. Same applies to "steady_time", and "steady" on its own is weird. Steady what? While we're bike-shedding, I'll toss in another alternative. Early Apple Macintoshes had a system function that returned the time since last reboot measured in 1/60th of a second, called "the ticks". If I have understood correctly, the monotonic timer will have similar properties: guaranteed monotonic, as accurate as the hardware can provide, but not directly translatable to real (wall-clock) time. (Wall clocks sometimes go backwards.) The two functions are not quite identical: Mac "ticks" were 32-bit integers, not floating point numbers. But the use-cases seem to be the same. time.ticks() seems right as a name to me. It suggests a steady heartbeat ticking along, without making any suggestion that it returns "the time". -- 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