On 09Apr2012 13:26, Victor Stinner <[email protected]> wrote: | > | On Windows, GetProcessTimes() has not a "high-resolution": it has a | > | accuracy of 1 ms in the best case. | > | > This page: | > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms683223%28v=vs.85%29.aspx | > says "100-nanosecond time units". | > | > Am I going to the wrong place to learn about these functions? | | Yes, the resolution is 100 ns, but the accuracy is only 1 ms in the | best case (but it usually 15 ms or 10 ms).
I understand the difference, but I can't see mention of the accuracy on the cited page, hence my question as to whether I'm looking in the right place. I need to mark up clocks with their accuracy (I've got their resolution:-) | Resolution != accuracy, and only accuracy matters :-) | http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0418/#resolution I agree. But finding the accuracy seems harder than one would like. -- Cameron Simpson <[email protected]> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ Thomas R. Collins<[email protected]> wrote > This is NOT alt.peeves, as I previously suspected, but >alt.talk-about-what-you-want-but-sooner-or-later-you'll-get-flamed. alt.peeves "as you suspected" doesn't exist and never has. The _real_ alt.peeves is, and for at least the past six years has been, the literate and flamminiferous counterpart of alt.flame and the refined and brutal alternative to alt.tasteless. - Charlie Stross <[email protected]>, educating a newbie _______________________________________________ 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