On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Cameron Simpson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 04Apr2012 22:23, PJ Eby <[email protected]> wrote: > | On Apr 4, 2012 7:28 PM, "Victor Stinner" <[email protected]> > wrote: > | > More details why it's hard to define such function and why I dropped > | > it from the PEP. > | > > | > If someone wants to propose again such function ("monotonic or > | > fallback to system" clock), two issues should be solved: > | > > | > - name of the function > | > - description of the function > | > | Maybe I missed it, but did anyone ever give a reason why the fallback > | couldn't be to Steven D'Aprano's monotonic wrapper algorithm over the > | system clock? (Given a suitable minimum delta.) That function appeared > to > | me to provide a sufficiently monotonic clock for timeout purposes, if > | nothing else. > > It was pointed out (by Nick Coglan I think?) that if the system clock > stepped backwards then a timeout would be extended by at least that > long. For example, code that waited (by polling the synthetic clock) > for 1s could easily wait an hour if the system clock stepped back that > far. Probaby undesirable. > Steven D'Aprano's algorithm doesn't do that. If the system clock steps backwards, it still stepped forward by a specified minimum delta. The amount of time that a timeout was extended would be a function of the polling frequency, not the presence of absence of backward steps in the underlying clock.
_______________________________________________ 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