RetroSearch Browse

Fri Mar 23 18:27:50 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/118000.html

> I want time.steady(strict=True), and I'm glad you're providing it and
> I'm willing to use it this way, although it is slightly annoying
> because "time.steady(strict=True)" really means
> "time.steady(i_really_mean_it=True)". Else, I would have used
> "time.time()".
>
> I am aware of a large number of use cases for a steady clock (event
> scheduling, profiling, timeouts), and a large number of uses cases for
> a "NTP-respecting wall clock" clock (calendaring, displaying to a
> user, timestamping). I'm not aware of any use case for "steady if
> implemented, else wall-clock", and it sounds like a mistake to me.

time.steady(strict=False) is what you need to implement timeout.

If you use time.steady(strict=True) for timeout, it means that you
cannot use select, threads, etc. if your platform doesn't provide
monotonic clock, whereas it works "well" (except the issue of adjusted
time) with Python < 3.3.

Victor

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/118000.html below:

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