➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author lemburg
Recipients belopolsky, benhoyt, benjamin.peterson, ethan.furman, fdrake, lemburg, mrabarnett, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date 2017-10-24.20:40:58
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <4a8c1531-4042-0d64-d07e-b59a8e0de91b@egenix.com>
In-reply-to <1508837012.73.0.213398074469.issue31803@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content 
On 24.10.2017 11:23, STINNER Victor wrote:
> 
> Marc-Andre Lemburg: "Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know."
> 
> Do you still think that we need to modify time.clock() rather than deprecating it?

Yes, to avoid yet another Python 2/3 difference. It should be
replaced with the appropriate variant on Windows
and non-Windows platforms. From Serhiy's response that's
time.process_time() on non-Windows platforms and time.perf_counter()
on Windows.

The documentation can point to the new functions and recommend
these over time.clock().
History
Date User Action Args
2017-10-24 20:40:58lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, fdrake, belopolsky, vstinner, benjamin.peterson, mrabarnett, benhoyt, ethan.furman, serhiy.storchaka
2017-10-24 20:40:58lemburglinkissue31803 messages
2017-10-24 20:40:58lemburgcreate