STINNER Victor <victor.stin...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> I think you need to reconsider the time.steady() name you're using
> in the PEP. For practical purposes, it's better to call it
> time.monotonic()
I opened a new thread on python-dev to discuss this topic.
> and only make the function available if the OS provides
> a monotonic clock.
Oh, I should explain this choice in the PEP. Basically, the idea is to
provide a best-effort portable function.
> The fallback to time.time() is not a good idea, since then the programmer
> has to check whether the timer really provides the features she's after
> every time it gets used.
Nope, time.get_clock_info('steady') does not change at runtime. So it
can only be checked once.
> Instead of trying to tweak all the different clocks and timers into
> a single function, wouldn't it be better to expose each kind as a
> different function and then let the programmer decide which fits
> best ?!
This is a completly different approach. It should be discussed on
python-dev, not in the bug tracker please. I think that Python can
help the developer to write portable code by providing high-level
functions because clock properties are well known (e.g. see
time.get_clock_info).
> BTW: Thanks for the research you've done on the different clocks and
> timers. That's very useful information.
You're welcome.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14428>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
