> -----Original Message----- > From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames....@python.org > [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames....@python.org] On Behalf > Of Mark Hammond > The thread seems to be at > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/be324 > 78a4b8e77b6/816d6228119a3474 > (although I do seem to recall more discussion of the patch which I > currently can't find). I'd be very surprised if any applications rely > on > the fact that each process starts counting at zero, so if someone can > come up with a high-res counter which avoids that artifact I'd expect > it > could be used.
The point in question seems to be this this (from the thread): * Need some sort of static "start value", which is set when the process starts, so I can return to Python in seconds. An easy hack is to set this the first time clock() is called, but then it wont reflect any sort of real time - but would be useful for relative times... But the argumentation is flawed. There is an implicit "start" value (technically, CPU powerup). The point concedes that no sort of real time is returned, and so the particular "start" time chosen is immaterial. K _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
