Hi Victor,

I think you need to reconsider the time.steady() name you're using
in the PEP. For practical purposes, it's better to call it
time.monotonic() and only make the function available if the OS provides
a monotonic clock.

The fallback to time.time() is not a good idea, since then the programmer
has to check whether the timer really provides the features she's after
every time it gets used.

Regardless of this functional problem, I'm also not sure what you want
to imply by the term "steady". A steady beat would mean that the timer
never stops and keeps a constant pace, but that's not the case for
the timers you're using to implement time.steady(). If you're after
a mathematical term, "continuous" would be a better term, but
again, time.time() is not always continuous.

Instead of trying to tweak all the different clocks and timers into
a single function, wouldn't it be better to expose each kind as a
different function and then let the programmer decide which fits
best ?!

BTW: Thanks for the research you've done on the different clocks and
timers. That's very useful information.

Thanks,
-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

________________________________________________________________________
2012-04-03: Python Meeting Duesseldorf                             today

::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::

   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/