The reason I originally suggested "wallclock" was because that term is often used to distinguish time measurements (delta) that show real world time from those showing CPU or Kernel time. "number.crunch() took 2 seconds wallclock time but only 1 second CPU!". The original problem was that time.clock() was "wallclock" on some platforms but "cpu" on others, IIRC. But monotonic is probably even better. I agree removing one or the other, probably wallclock. K
-----Original Message----- From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames....@python.org [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames....@python.org] On Behalf Of Guido van Rossum Sent: 13. mars 2012 17:27 To: Victor Stinner Cc: Python Dev Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function? I think wallclock() is an awkward name; in other contexts I've seen "wall clock time" used to mean the time that a clock on the wall would show, i.e. local time. This matches definition #1 of http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/W/wall-time.html (while yours matches #2 :-). I agree that it's better to have only one of these. I also think if we offer it we should always have it -- if none of the implementations are available, I guess you could fall back on returning time.time(), with some suitable offset so people don't think it is always the same. Maybe it could be called realtime()? _______________________________________________ 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
