[Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?

Wed Mar 14 06:42:24 CET 2012

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Michael Foord
<fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 2012, at 16:57, Victor Stinner wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>> I added two functions to the time module in Python 3.3: wallclock()
>> and monotonic(). I'm unable to explain the difference between these
>> two functions, even if I wrote them :-) wallclock() is suppose to be
>> more accurate than time() but has an unspecified starting point.
>> monotonic() is similar except that it is monotonic: it cannot go
>> backward. monotonic() may not be available or fail whereas wallclock()
>> is available/work, but I think that the two functions are redundant.
>>>> I prefer to keep only monotonic() because it is not affected by system
>> clock update and should help to fix issues on NTP update in functions
>> implementing a timeout.
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>> I am in the middle of adding a feature to unittest that involves timing of individual tests. I want the highest resolution cross platform measure of wallclock time - and time.wallclock() looked ideal. If monotonic may not exist or can fail why would that be better?
>
Isn't the highest resolution cross platform measure of "wallclock"
time spelled "time.clock()"? Its docs say "this is the function to use
for benchmarking Python or timing algorithms", and it would be a shame
to add and teach a new function rather than improving clock()'s
definition.
Jeffrey