Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> writes:
> The most conservative approach is to assume that while you're suspended,
> *everything else* is suspended too, so when you resume you still have to
> sleep for the full N seconds.
That's an intriguing interpretation of what sleep() should do, but I
fail to see *how* the function could even attempt to do that: should it
keep its own notion of the elapsed time?
I mean, one simplicistic, naive (and wrong) implementation of Dave's
(and mine, FWIW) could be:
def sleep(secs):
now = time()
while time() < (now + secs):
pass # this is wrong, should really be some kind of "yield_cpu()"
How would it become if it should take into account the intervening
"coma"? Maybe something like
def sleep(secs):
nmillisleeps = secs * 1000
for i in range(nmillisleeps):
now = time()
while time() < (now + 0.001):
pass
?
Also, should it also assume that if the system suffers of a slowdown
instead (maybe simply due to another process using the same /inefficient
and wrong/ implementation of sleep() ;-) then everything else gets
slowed down too, and act accordingly?
just-for-the-sake-of-arguing-ly, lele.
--
nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri
real: Emanuele Gaifas | comincerò ad aver paura di chi mi copia.
l...@metapensiero.it | -- Fortunato Depero, 1929.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
