Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: >> >> Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>: >> >> > It's not a Python issue. Python can't do anything more than ask the >> > system, and if the system's value rolls over several times a year, >> > Python can't magically cure that. The information has already been >> > lost. >> >> Sure it could by having an invisible background thread occasionally call >> time.monotonic(). It could even be done on the side without a thread. >> >> Anyway, the idea of a clock is complicated: >> >> * the program could be stopped by a STOP signal >> >> * the program could be suspended from power management >> >> * the program could be resurrected from a virtual machine snapshot >> >> * the program could be migrated from a different physical machine > > This seems like a lot of effort to unreliably design around a problem that > will matter to only a tiny fraction of users.
- people's computers are mostly on batteries (laptops, tablets, smartphones) -- "suspended from power management" use case - corporations's computations are mostly virtualized -- possible "ressurected", "migrated" use case i.e., the opposite might be true -- non-virtualized PCs connected to AC are (becoming) minority. -- Akira -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
