On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > That means choosing a name for the version that falls back to time() > if monotonic() isn't available so it can be safely substituted for > time.time() without having to worry about platform compatibility > implications.
What's wrong with "time.time()" again? As documented in http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/time.html it makes no guarantees, and specifically there is *no* guarantee that it will ever behave *badly*<wink/>. Of course, we'll have to guarantee that, if a badly-behaved clock is available, users can get access to it, so call that time._time(). _______________________________________________ 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
