Home Original page

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

Victor Stinner victor.stinner at gmail.com
Tue Mar 27 01:07:39 CEST 2012 
> So using one kind of clock and then "falling back" to the other kind
> is a choice that should be rare, explicit, and discouraged. The
> provision of such a function in the standard library is an attractive
> nuisance -- a thing that people naturally think that they want when
> they haven't though about it very carefully, but that is actually
> dangerous.
>
> If someone has a use case which fits the "steady or else fall back to
> wall clock" pattern, I would like to learn about it.

Python 3.2 doesn't provide a monotonic clock, so most program uses
time.time() even if a monotonic clock would be better in some
functions. For these programs, you can replace time.time() by
time.steady() where you need to compute a time delta (e.g. compute a
timeout) to avoid issues with the system clock update. The idea is to
improve the program without refusing to start if no monotonic clock is
available.

Victor
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list