Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Jim Jewett <jimjjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm still a little fuzzy on *why* it shouldn't count as a monotonic
clock.
So are the people who say it shouldn't count (unless you're speaking
of the specific implementation on Unix systems, which can go backward
if the admin or NTP decides it should be so).
The fact that the clock is not monotonic is a pretty good reason for it not to
count as monotonic. I don't think there's anything fuzzy about that.
I think they are in
general mistaking their use case for a general specification, that's
all.
I'm sorry, am I missing something here? What use case are you talking about?
Even Glyph cited "what other people seem to think" in supporting
the usage where "monotonic" implies "high quality" in some informal
sense, although he does have a spec for what high quality means, and
AIUI an API for it in Twisted.
Who are these people who think monotonic is a synonym for "high quality"?
Why should we pander to their confusion at the cost of those who do understand
the difference between monotonic and high quality?
I think we should just accept that "monotonic" is in more or less
common use as a synonym for "high quality", and warn *our* users that
the implementers of such clocks may be working to a different spec. I
think the revised glossary's description of "monotonic" does that
pretty well.
Do I understand correctly that you think it is acceptable to call something
monotonic regardless of whether or not it actually is monotonic?
If not, I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting here.
--
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
