> I want time.steady(strict=True), and I'm glad you're providing it and > I'm willing to use it this way, although it is slightly annoying > because "time.steady(strict=True)" really means > "time.steady(i_really_mean_it=True)". Else, I would have used > "time.time()". > > I am aware of a large number of use cases for a steady clock (event > scheduling, profiling, timeouts), and a large number of uses cases for > a "NTP-respecting wall clock" clock (calendaring, displaying to a > user, timestamping). I'm not aware of any use case for "steady if > implemented, else wall-clock", and it sounds like a mistake to me.
time.steady(strict=False) is what you need to implement timeout. If you use time.steady(strict=True) for timeout, it means that you cannot use select, threads, etc. if your platform doesn't provide monotonic clock, whereas it works "well" (except the issue of adjusted time) with Python < 3.3. 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
