Cameron Simpson wrote:
| The main reason to use the word "monotonic clock" to refer to the
| second concept is that POSIX does so, but since Mac OS X, Solaris,
| Windows, and C++ have all avoided following POSIX's mistake, I think
| Python should too.
No. If it is not monotonic, DO NOT CALL IT monotonic. Call it steady,
perhaps, if it _is_ steady (within some threshold of course).
Um, steady is a stronger promise than monotonic. This is a monotonic sequence:
1, 2, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 199, 200, 201, 999
But it isn't steady, because it jumps forward.
Here is a non-monotonic sequence:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
This isn't steady either, because it jumps backwards.
To be steady, it MUST also be monotonic. If you think that it is appropriate
to call a non-monotonic clock "steady", then I think you should tell us what
you mean by "steady but not monotonic".
--
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
