Message302698
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | germn, pitrou, r.david.murray, yselivanov |
| Date | 2017-09-21.15:47:04 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1506008824.7.0.798775582014.issue31539@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
AFAIR the Windows clock has a 15ms granularity, so I'm not really surprised. In other words, I don't think `asyncio.sleep` sleeps less than expected, but that it's the imprecision of time.time() which gives you that impression. What happens if you replace `time.time()` with `time.perf_counter()` in the code above? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2017-09-21 15:47:04 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, r.david.murray, yselivanov, germn |
| 2017-09-21 15:47:04 | pitrou | set | messageid: <1506008824.7.0.798775582014.issue31539@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017-09-21 15:47:04 | pitrou | link | issue31539 messages |
| 2017-09-21 15:47:04 | pitrou | create | |