Re: [Python-Dev] time.clock_info() field names

2012/4/29 Jim J. Jewett : > > > In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-April/119134.html > Benjamin Peterson wrote: > >> I see PEP 418 gives time.clock_info() two boolean fields named >> "is_monotonic" and "is_adjusted". I think the "is_" is unnecessary and >> a bit ugly, and they coul

[Python-Dev] time.clock_info() field names

In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-April/119134.html Benjamin Peterson wrote: > I see PEP 418 gives time.clock_info() two boolean fields named > "is_monotonic" and "is_adjusted". I think the "is_" is unnecessary and > a bit ugly, and they could just be renamed "monotonic" and "a

Re: [Python-Dev] time.clock_info() field names

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:25:16 -0400 Benjamin Peterson wrote: > Hi, > I see PEP 418 gives time.clock_info() two boolean fields named > "is_monotonic" and "is_adjusted". I think the "is_" is unnecessary and > a bit ugly, and they could just be renamed "monotonic" and "adjusted". > > Thoughts? Agree

[Python-Dev] time.clock_info() field names

Hi, I see PEP 418 gives time.clock_info() two boolean fields named "is_monotonic" and "is_adjusted". I think the "is_" is unnecessary and a bit ugly, and they could just be renamed "monotonic" and "adjusted". Thoughts? -- Regards, Benjamin ___ Python-D

Re: [Python-Dev] [RFC] PEP 418: Add monotonic time, performance counter and process time functions

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: >>> As a thin wrapper, adding it to the time module was pretty much >>> uncontroversial, I think. The PEP proposes cross-platform >>> functions with consistent semantics, which is where a discussion was >>> needed. >> >> True, but does this me

Re: [Python-Dev] [RFC] PEP 418: Add monotonic time, performance counter and process time functions

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi Guido, > > 2012/4/28 Guido van Rossum : >> I read most of the PEP and I think it is ready for acceptance! Thanks >> for your patience in shepherding this through such a difficult and >> long discussion. > > You're welcome, but many develo

Re: [Python-Dev] [RFC] PEP 418: Add monotonic time, performance counter and process time functions

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Larry Hastings wrote: >> >> >> On 04/29/2012 02:01 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote: >>> >>> On 4/29/2012 4:41 AM, Larry Hastings wrote: I'd prefer an object to a dict, but not a tuple / structseq.  There's no need for the members to

Re: [Python-Dev] package imports, sys.path and os.chdir()

On 29.04.12 07:05, Nick Coghlan wrote: On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:41 PM, PJ Eby wrote: That's already the case. Actually, sys.path[0] is *always* the absolute path of the script directory -- regardless of whether you invoked the script by a relative path or an absolute one, and regardless of wh

Re: [Python-Dev] [RFC] PEP 418: Add monotonic time, performance counter and process time functions

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 03:26:26 +0200 Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi Guido, > > 2012/4/28 Guido van Rossum : > > I read most of the PEP and I think it is ready for acceptance! Thanks > > for your patience in shepherding this through such a difficult and > > long discussion. > > You're welcome, but man

Re: [Python-Dev] [RFC] PEP 418: Add monotonic time, performance counter and process time functions

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 02:12:41 -0700 Larry Hastings wrote: > > On 04/29/2012 02:01 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote: > > On 4/29/2012 4:41 AM, Larry Hastings wrote: > >> I'd prefer an object to a dict, but not a tuple / structseq. There's no > >> need for the members to be iterable. > > I agree with you, b

Re: [Python-Dev] [RFC] PEP 418: Add monotonic time, performance counter and process time functions

Larry Hastings wrote: On 04/29/2012 02:01 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote: On 4/29/2012 4:41 AM, Larry Hastings wrote: I'd prefer an object to a dict, but not a tuple / structseq. There's no need for the members to be iterable. I agree with you, but there's already plenty of precedent for this. [...

Re: [Python-Dev] package imports, sys.path and os.chdir()

On 28.04.12 21:16, Brett Cannon wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 04:08, Nick Coghlan > wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Brett Cannon mailto:br...@python.org>> wrote: > I'm personally in favour of changing the insertion of '' to sys.path to > ins

Re: [Python-Dev] [RFC] PEP 418: Add monotonic time, performance counter and process time functions

On 04/29/2012 02:01 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote: On 4/29/2012 4:41 AM, Larry Hastings wrote: I'd prefer an object to a dict, but not a tuple / structseq. There's no need for the members to be iterable. I agree with you, but there's already plenty of precedent for this. [...] Iteration for these i

Re: [Python-Dev] [RFC] PEP 418: Add monotonic time, performance counter and process time functions

On 4/29/2012 4:41 AM, Larry Hastings wrote: > On 04/28/2012 04:20 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote: >> But we generally use a namedtuple (or structseq) for things like >> get_clock_info. For example, for sys.float_info there's no need for it >> to be a tuple, and it can be extended in the future, yet it's a

Re: [Python-Dev] [RFC] PEP 418: Add monotonic time, performance counter and process time functions

On 04/28/2012 04:20 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote: But we generally use a namedtuple (or structseq) for things like get_clock_info. For example, for sys.float_info there's no need for it to be a tuple, and it can be extended in the future, yet it's a structseq. I'd prefer an object to a dict, but not