Lennart Regebro regebro at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 19:07:29 CET 2012

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

2012/3/14 Kristján Valur Jónsson <kristjan at ccpgames.com>:
>> - By default, it should fall back to time.time if a better source is
>>  not available, but there should be a flag that can disable this
>>  fallback for users who really *need* a monotonic/steady time source.
> As pointed out on a different thread, you don"t need this "flag" since the code can easily enforce the monotonic property by maintaining a static value.

With this, I think time.steady() would be clear and nice.

//Lennart

---

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list