time.monotonic() roll over

[Lele Gaifax]

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> writes:

> The most conservative approach is to assume that while you're suspended,
> *everything else* is suspended too, so when you resume you still have to
> sleep for the full N seconds.

That's an intriguing interpretation of what sleep() should do, but I
fail to see *how* the function could even attempt to do that: should it
keep its own notion of the elapsed time?

I mean, one simplicistic, naive (and wrong) implementation of Dave's
(and mine, FWIW) could be:

    def sleep(secs):
        now = time()
        while time() < (now + secs):
            pass # this is wrong, should really be some kind of "yield_cpu()"

How would it become if it should take into account the intervening
"coma"? Maybe something like

    def sleep(secs):
        nmillisleeps = secs * 1000
        for i in range(nmillisleeps):
            now = time()
            while time() < (now + 0.001):
                pass

?

Also, should it also assume that if the system suffers of a slowdown
instead (maybe simply due to another process using the same /inefficient
and wrong/ implementation of sleep() ;-) then everything else gets
slowed down too, and act accordingly?

just-for-the-sake-of-arguing-ly, lele.
-- 
nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri
real: Emanuele Gaifas | comincerò ad aver paura di chi mi copia.
lele at metapensiero.it  |                 -- Fortunato Depero, 1929.