On 27/03/2012 18:45, Victor Stinner wrote:
It is this always-having-to-manually-fallback-depending-on-os that I was hoping your new functionality would avoid. Is time.try_monotonic() suitable for this usecase?[snip...]Straying from that is only going to create confusion. Besides that, the one use case for "time.steady()" that you give (benchmarking) is better served by a clock that follows the C++0x definition.I added a time.hires() clock to the PEP for the benchmarking/profiling use case. This function is not always available and so a program has to fallback manually to another clock. I don't think that it is an issue: Python programs already have to choose between time.clock() and time.time() depending on the OS (e.g. timeit module and pybench program).
Michael
As well, certain kinds of scheduling/timeouts would be better implemented with the C++0x definition for "steady" rather than the "monotonic" one and vice-versa.Sorry, I don't understand. Which kind of scheduling/timeouts? The PEP is still a draft (work-in-progress). Victor _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk
-- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com