Loading...

python-dev@python.org

[Prev] Thread [Next]  |  [Prev] Date [Next]

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed Ethan Furman Thu Apr 05 09:01:29 2012

Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 04Apr2012 22:23, PJ Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Apr 4, 2012 7:28 PM, "Victor Stinner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 function ("monotonic or
| > fallback to system" clock), two issues should be solved:
| >
| >  - name of the function
| >  - description of the function
| | Maybe I missed it, but did anyone ever give a reason why the fallback
| couldn't be to Steven D'Aprano's monotonic wrapper algorithm over the
| system clock?  (Given a suitable minimum delta.)  That function appeared to
| me to provide a sufficiently monotonic clock for timeout purposes, if
| nothing else.

It was pointed out (by Nick Coglan I think?) that if the system clock
stepped backwards then a timeout would be extended by at least that
long. For example, code that waited (by polling the synthetic clock)
for 1s could easily wait an hour if the system clock stepped back that
far. Probaby undesirable.

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!).

~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/alexiscircle%40gmail.com