On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 00:45, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Since the only monotonic clock that can be adjusted by NTP is Linux'
CLOCK_MONOTONIC, if we avoid it, then time.monotonic() would always
give a clock that isn't adjusted by NTP.
I thought we
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 01:10, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/4/4 Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 13:04, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com
wrote:
It depends if the option supports other values. But as I understood,
the keyword value must
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:41:48 +0200
andrew.svetlov python-check...@python.org wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/774c2afa6665
changeset: 76115:774c2afa6665
user:Andrew Svetlov andrew.svet...@gmail.com
date:Thu Apr 05 12:41:20 2012 +0300
summary:
Issue #3033: Add
Since the only monotonic clock that can be adjusted by NTP is Linux'
CLOCK_MONOTONIC, if we avoid it, then time.monotonic() would always
give a clock that isn't adjusted by NTP.
I thought we decided that NTP adjustment isn't an issue, because
it's always gradual.
Well, in timings it is an
2012/4/5 PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
More details why it's hard to define such function and why I dropped
it from the PEP.
If someone wants to propose again such function (monotonic or
fallback to system clock), two issues should be solved:
- name of the function
- description of the
Maybe you will be surprised, but tkinter.rst has no comprehensive docs
for any tkinter class.
I like to get it fixed but definitely cannot do it myself. My very
poor English is the main objection for writing narrative
documentation.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Antoine Pitrou
Hi there. Antoine Pitrou suggested that I float this on python-dev again. The
new patch should
1) be much simpler and less hacky
2) remove the special case code for PyGenObject from gcmodule.c
K
Frá: Kristján Valur Jónsson [rep...@bugs.python.org]
Sent:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Oleg Broytman p...@phdru.name wrote:
Well, I am partially retreat. Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced. get_clock(FLAG, on_error=None) could return
None.
I still don't see what's erroneous about returning None when asked for
an object
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 10:06:38PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Oleg Broytman p...@phdru.name wrote:
Well, I am partially retreat. Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced. get_clock(FLAG, on_error=None) could return
None.
I
(reformatted to remove topposting)
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:52:56 +0300, Andrew Svetlov andrew.svet...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:41:48 +0200
andrew.svetlov python-check...@python.org wrote:
Thank you, David.
Is separate repo clone located at hg.python.org good enough? Or maybe
there are better way to do it?
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
(reformatted to remove topposting)
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:52:56 +0300, Andrew Svetlov
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Oleg Broytman p...@phdru.name wrote:
Why doesn't open() return None for a non-existing file? or
socket.gethostbyname() for a non-existing name?
That's not an answer to my question, because those calls have very
important use cases where the user knows the
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:45:06PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Oleg Broytman p...@phdru.name wrote:
Why doesn't open() return None for a non-existing file? or
socket.gethostbyname() for a non-existing name?
That's not an answer to my question,
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:34:07 +0300, Andrew Svetlov andrew.svet...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thank you, David.
Is separate repo clone located at hg.python.org good enough? Or maybe
there are better way to do it?
That sounds like a good plan to me.
--David
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:22:17 +0400, Oleg Broytman p...@phdru.name wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:45:06PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Oleg Broytman p...@phdru.name wrote:
 Why doesn't open() return None for a non-existing file? or
Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 04Apr2012 22:23, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
| On Apr 4, 2012 7:28 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
| More details why it's hard to define such function and why I dropped
| it from the PEP.
|
| If someone wants to propose again such
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 07:22:17PM +0400, Oleg Broytman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:45:06PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
find it
hard to imagine use cases where file = open(thisfile) or
open(thatfile) makes sense. Not even for the case where thisfile ==
'script.pyc' and
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:38:13AM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
Do you really think we need to add a third clock function (the query
function) that just returns True or False? Maybe we do, if actually
creating the clock could raise an error even if exists, as is the case
for 'open'.
May
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 08:32:22 -0700
Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
Steven D'Aprano's synthetic clock is able to partially avoid that
situation -- worst case is a timeout of double what you asked for -- so
10 seconds instead of 5 (which is much better than 3600!).
The remaining issue
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au wrote:
On 04Apr2012 22:23, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
| On Apr 4, 2012 7:28 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com
wrote:
| More details why it's hard to define such function and why I dropped
| it from the
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/4/5 PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
More details why it's hard to define such function and why I dropped
it from the PEP.
If someone wants to propose again such function (monotonic or
fallback to system
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 9:48 AM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com
wrote:
2012/4/5 PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
More details why it's hard to define such function and why I dropped
it from the PEP.
If someone
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:56:19 -0700
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
For timeout purposes in a single process, such a clock is useful. It just
isn't suitable for benchmarks, or for interprocess coordination.
I think it would be better if the proposed algorithm (or whatever
On 4/5/2012 10:06 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
(reformatted to remove topposting)
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:52:56 +0300, Andrew Svetlovandrew.svet...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Antoine Pitrousolip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Aren't there any docs?
Maybe you will be surprised,
For timeout purposes in a single process, such a clock is useful. It just
isn't suitable for benchmarks, or for interprocess coordination.
I think it would be better if the proposed algorithm (or whatever
algorithm to fix timeouts) was implemented by the
application/library code using the
Victor Stinner wrote:
I changed time.monotonic() to not fallback to the system clock exactly
for this reason: Python cannot guess what the developer expects, or
how the developer will use the clock.
Which is exactly why I like Cameron Simpson's approach to selecting a
clock -- let the
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Depending on the polling frequency sounds like a bad idea, since you
can't know that you're the only user of the clock. Also depending on
the use case, too short a timeout may be worse than too long a
timeout.
Given a
Folks:
Good job, Victor Stinner on baking the accumulated knowledge of this
thread into PEP 418. Even though I'm very interested in the topic, I
haven't been able to digest the whole thread(s) on the list and
understand what the current collective understanding is. The detailed
PEP document helps
Oleg Broytman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:52:00PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
Forced? I do not use Python to be forced to use one style of
programming over another.
Then it's strange you are using Python with its strict syntax
(case-sensitivity, forced indents), ubiquitous
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:56:00AM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
It's only an error if it's documented that way and, more
importantly, thought of that way. The re module is a good example:
if it can't find what you're looking for it returns None -- it does
*not* raise a NotFound exception.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I have been hoping to work on a proper tkinter doc. I discovered some time
ago through the pydoc server (not currently working for me, see
http://bugs.python.org/issue14512)
that their are doc strings for (most) everything. I
Oleg Broytman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:56:00AM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
It's only an error if it's documented that way and, more
importantly, thought of that way. The re module is a good example:
if it can't find what you're looking for it returns None -- it does
*not* raise a
On 05Apr2012 03:05, Oleg Broytman p...@phdru.name wrote:
| On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:52:00PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
| Forced? I do not use Python to be forced to use one style of
| programming over another.
|
|Then it's strange you are using Python with its strict syntax
|
On 06Apr2012 00:15, Oleg Broytman p...@phdru.name wrote:
|So we can argue in circles both ways, there are too many arguments
| pro and contra. Python is just too inconsistent to be consistently
| argued over. ;-)
Bah! I think these threads demonstrate that we can consistently argue
over
On 05Apr2012 10:21, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 01:10, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
| Ok for the default, but what happens if the caller sets an option to
| False? Does get_clock(monotonic=False) return a non-monotonic clock?
| (I guess
On 05Apr2012 09:56, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 9:48 AM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
| What's missing is that if you're using a monotonic clock for timeouts, then
| a monotonically-adjusted system clock can do that, subject to the polling
|
Le 06/04/2012 00:17, Cameron Simpson a écrit :
This is where the bitmap approach can be less confusing - the docstring
says The returned clock shall have all the requested flags. It is at
least very predictable.
By the way, I removed (deferred) the time.highres() function from the
PEP, and I
On 05Apr2012 13:39, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn zo...@zooko.com wrote:
| Good job, Victor Stinner on baking the accumulated knowledge of this
| thread into PEP 418. Even though I'm very interested in the topic, I
| haven't been able to digest the whole thread(s) on the list and
| understand what the
On 06Apr2012 00:27, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
| Le 06/04/2012 00:17, Cameron Simpson a écrit :
| This is where the bitmap approach can be less confusing - the docstring
| says The returned clock shall have all the requested flags. It is at
| least very predictable.
|
| By
On Apr 5, 2012 11:01 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I think it would be better if the proposed algorithm (or whatever
algorithm to fix timeouts) was implemented by the
application/library code using the timeout (or provided as a separate
library function), rather than by the
On 06Apr2012 08:51, I wrote:
| On 06Apr2012 00:27, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
| | By the way, I removed (deferred) the time.highres() function from the
| | PEP,
|
| Chuckle; was not the whole PEP for a high res clock?
Gah. I see it was for montonic, not high res. Sorry.
Cameron Simpson wrote:
A monotonic clock never returns t0 t1 for t0, t1 being two adjacent
polls of the clock. On its own it says nothing about steadiness or
correlation with real world time.
No, no, no.
This is the strict mathematical meaning of the word monotonic,
but the way it's used in
On 06Apr2012 13:14, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
| Cameron Simpson wrote:
| A monotonic clock never returns t0 t1 for t0, t1 being two adjacent
| polls of the clock. On its own it says nothing about steadiness or
| correlation with real world time.
|
| No, no, no.
| This is
Greg Ewing wrote:
Cameron Simpson wrote:
A monotonic clock never returns t0 t1 for t0, t1 being two adjacent
polls of the clock. On its own it says nothing about steadiness or
correlation with real world time.
No, no, no.
This is the strict mathematical meaning of the word monotonic,
but
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Oleg Broytman p...@phdru.name wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:45:06PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Oleg Broytman p...@phdru.name wrote:
Why doesn't open() return None for a non-existing file? or
socket.gethostbyname()
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
This is the strict mathematical meaning of the word monotonic, but the way
it's used in relation to OS clocks, it seems to mean rather more than that.
Yep. As far as I can tell, nobody has a use for an unsteady,
On 05Apr2012 21:07, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn zo...@zooko.com wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz
wrote:
| This is the strict mathematical meaning of the word monotonic,
| but the way it's used in relation to OS clocks, it seems to mean rather
| more than
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
On 06Apr2012 14:31, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
| 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
49 matches
Mail list logo
