Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/15/2012 5:27 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Matt Joiner<anacro...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1. I now prefer time.monotonic(), no flags.
Am I alone thinking that an adjective is an odd choice for a function
name?
I would normally agree, but in this case, it is a function of a module
whose short name names what the adjective is modifying. I expect that
this will normally be called with the module name.
I think monotonic_clock or monotonic_time would be a better option.
time.monotonic_time seems redundant.
Agreed. Same applies to "steady_time", and "steady" on its own is weird.
Steady what?
While we're bike-shedding, I'll toss in another alternative. Early Apple
Macintoshes had a system function that returned the time since last reboot
measured in 1/60th of a second, called "the ticks".
If I have understood correctly, the monotonic timer will have similar
properties: guaranteed monotonic, as accurate as the hardware can provide, but
not directly translatable to real (wall-clock) time. (Wall clocks sometimes go
backwards.)
The two functions are not quite identical: Mac "ticks" were 32-bit integers,
not floating point numbers. But the use-cases seem to be the same.
time.ticks() seems right as a name to me. It suggests a steady heartbeat
ticking along, without making any suggestion that it returns "the time".
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
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
