On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. I don't think that's a reason that should be considered. There just doesn't seem to be a single best clock, nor do clocks of similar character seem to be easy to find across platforms. So the reasons I'd like to see are of the form "we should provide CLOCK_MONOTONIC on Linux as one of our small selection of recommended clocks *because* the frequency adjustment makes it *most* useful in use-cases A and B, and it's a *reasonable* choice in use-case C *but* we need to document that it's a terrible choice for use-case D." Why do I ask for this kind of argument? Because there are only a few people (you, Glyph, Zooko) who seem to have studied clocks closely enough to be able to evaluate the technical issues involved in "*this* clock is good/mediocre/unusable in *that* use case." I'm happy to leave such judgments up to you guys. What the rest of us can contribute is (a) use cases to consider and (b) our opinions on the relative importance of various use cases in whether we should recommend a particular clock (ie, provide a named API in the stdlib for it). _______________________________________________ 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
