On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Victor Stinner <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2012年4月5日 PJ Eby <[email protected]>: > >> 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. > > > Did you read the following section of the PEP? > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0418/#working-around-operating-system-bugs > > Did I miss something? If yes, could you write a patch for the PEP please? > What's missing is that if you're using a monotonic clock for timeouts, then a monotonically-adjusted system clock can do that, subject to the polling frequency -- it does not break just because the system clock is set backwards; it simply loses time proportional to the frequency with which it is polled. For timeout purposes in a single process, such a clock is useful. It just isn't suitable for benchmarks, or for interprocess coordination.
_______________________________________________ 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