Magnus Lycka wrote:
> Shane Hathaway wrote:
>
>>time.time() measures real time, while time.clock() measures the time the
>>CPU dedicates to your program.
>
>
> I suppose that varies with the platform... "help(time.clock)" says:
>
> Help on built-in function clock:
>
> clock(...)
> clock() -> floating point number
>
> Return the CPU time or real time since the start of the process or
> since
> the first call to clock(). This has as much precision as the
> system records.
>
> Another thing to notice is that depending on OS, either time.time() or
> time.clock() might have much higher precision than the other.
I didn't notice that. Thanks.
However, isn't this thoroughly un-Pythonic? No wonder people have to
ask. Wouldn't it be better to have:
time.time() -> real time, with as much precision as the platform
provides. Does not wrap around.
time.cputime() -> CPU time, or real time on platforms that don't
measure CPU time separately from real time. May wrap around in
long-running processes.
Shane
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
