On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Michael Foord <fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > > On 13 Mar 2012, at 16:57, Victor Stinner wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I added two functions to the time module in Python 3.3: wallclock() >> and monotonic(). I'm unable to explain the difference between these >> two functions, even if I wrote them :-) wallclock() is suppose to be >> more accurate than time() but has an unspecified starting point. >> monotonic() is similar except that it is monotonic: it cannot go >> backward. monotonic() may not be available or fail whereas wallclock() >> is available/work, but I think that the two functions are redundant. >> >> I prefer to keep only monotonic() because it is not affected by system >> clock update and should help to fix issues on NTP update in functions >> implementing a timeout. >> >> What do you think? >> > > > I am in the middle of adding a feature to unittest that involves timing of > individual tests. I want the highest resolution cross platform measure of > wallclock time - and time.wallclock() looked ideal. If monotonic may not > exist or can fail why would that be better? >
Isn't the highest resolution cross platform measure of "wallclock" time spelled "time.clock()"? Its docs say "this is the function to use for benchmarking Python or timing algorithms", and it would be a shame to add and teach a new function rather than improving clock()'s definition. Jeffrey _______________________________________________ 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
