On 2012-03-23, at 1:27 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: >> 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.
Why can't I use select & threads? You mean that if a platform does not support monotonic clocks it also does not support threads and select sys call? - Yury _______________________________________________ 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
