Nadeem Vawda nadeem.vawda at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 22:17:52 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 ]

---

+1 for time.steady(strict=False).


On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Kristján Valur Jónsson
<kristjan at ccpgames.com> wrote:
>> - 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.
> This is how we worked around buggy implementations of QueryPerformanceCounter on windows ().
> K

That's fine if you just need the clock to be monotonic, but it isn't
any help if you also want to prevent it from jumping forward.

Cheers,
Nadeem

---

• 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