[Python-Dev] this is why we shouldn't call it a "monotonic clock" (was: PEP 418 is too divisive and confusing and should be postponed)

[Cameron Simpson]

On 09Apr2012 13:26, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com> wrote:
| > | On Windows, GetProcessTimes() has not a "high-resolution": it has a
| > | accuracy of 1 ms in the best case.
| >
| > This page:
| >  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms683223%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
| > says "100-nanosecond time units".
| >
| > Am I going to the wrong place to learn about these functions?
| 
| Yes, the resolution is 100 ns, but the accuracy is only 1 ms in the
| best case (but it usually 15 ms or 10 ms).

I understand the difference, but I can't see mention of the accuracy on
the cited page, hence my question as to whether I'm looking in the right
place. I need to mark up clocks with their accuracy (I've got their
resolution:-)

| Resolution != accuracy, and only accuracy matters :-)
| http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0418/#resolution

I agree. But finding the accuracy seems harder than one would like.
-- 
Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/

Thomas R. Collins<brimisha at ix.netcom.com> wrote
> This is NOT alt.peeves, as I previously suspected, but
>alt.talk-about-what-you-want-but-sooner-or-later-you'll-get-flamed.

alt.peeves "as you suspected" doesn't exist and never has. The _real_
alt.peeves is, and for at least the past six years has been, the
literate and flamminiferous counterpart of alt.flame and the refined
and brutal alternative to alt.tasteless.
        - Charlie Stross <charlie at antipope.org>, educating a newbie