> 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()?
For a concrete use case, see for example: http://bugs.python.org/issue14222 I just wrote two patches, for the queue and threading modules, using time.monotonic() if available, with a fallback to time.time(). My patches call time.monotonic() to ensure that it doesn't fail with OSError. I suppose that most libraries and programs will have to implement a similar fallback. We may merge both functions with a flag to be able to disable the fallback. Example: - time.realtime(): best-effort monotonic, with a fallback - time.realtime(monotonic=True): monotonic, may raise OSError or NotImplementedError Victor _______________________________________________ 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
