> 2. Those who think that "monotonic clock" means a clock that never > jumps, and that runs at a rate approximating the rate of real time. > This is a very useful kind of clock to have! It is what C++ now calls > a "steady clock". It is what all the major operating systems provide.
Python cannot give such guarantee. Extract of time.monotonic() function proposed in the PEP 418: "The elapsed time may or may not include time the system spends in sleep or hibernation; this depends on the operating system." The C++ Timeout Specification uses the following definition: "Objects of class steady_clock represent clocks for which values of time_point advance at a steady rate relative to real time. That is, the clock may not be adjusted." Proposed time.monotonic() doesn't respect this definition because CLOCK_MONOTONIC *is* adjusted (slewed) on Linux. We might provide a steady clock, but it would be less portable than the monotonic clock. I'm not sure that we need such clock, which use case requires a steady and not a monotonic clock? On Linux, I now prefer to use CLOCK_MONOTONIC (monotonic) than CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW (monotonic and steady as defined by C++) *because* its frequency is adjusted. 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
