Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.etla.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.011 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.98; '*S*': 0.00; 'cure': 0.07; 'explicit': 0.07; 'lost.': 0.09; 'subject:skip:t 10': 0.09; "system's": 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'python': 0.11; 'windows': 0.15; 'bug,': 0.16; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'rollovers': 0.16; 'suspicion.': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'library': 0.18; 'year,': 0.18; 'issue.': 0.22; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply- To:1': 0.27; 'function': 0.29; 'am,': 0.29; 'dec': 0.30; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; 'that.': 0.31; 'about.': 0.31; 'fri,': 0.33; 'could': 0.34; "can't": 0.35; 'no,': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'should': 0.36; 'system,': 0.38; 'anything': 0.39; 'bad': 0.39; 'days': 0.60; 'ian': 0.60; 'times': 0.62; 'information': 0.63; 'more': 0.64; 'rolls': 0.84; 'subject:over': 0.84; 'to:none': 0.92; 'period.': 0.95 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=nRJe6x4V5dYKkDRwhzhSiKX94jYlYS7m1CCeSuFAL0Q=; b=qdxcw8lanjz9S+s+x2As418cKPUZyauFuIW5/J06YPuCekJg0yx6EHmPHdFj/Tzz3K DQlWEYvnfjAE32giUUfiv7fdZ5eJMGgO0toEv/lFDASIkDy7ZyuOWyfRGo1mf5E0lucU XMKdm/4dr1gTD/1DdFUBg/2jSwVpJXYEkdNw6dP5/RUAIAJYvgw/w93GChWs0apsUJMn RCcfWIWXim3/xhnPLPRdmLTz11wGQCVk7EfSYUxHUH9lQpZddW7LQ4uiNasHX+cL9vdr z7VEvrrDYr/SY3NvqYqP2HApy9ueMmAZWUvFSz8TTlNfGD6qHh2L9idHQDhy/9Dpp8oz v8Lg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.136.92 with SMTP id k89mr10381407iod.43.1417710421789; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:27:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87r3wf8jy8.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> References: <54807cfd$0$2311$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <87vblr8lcw.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87r3wf8jy8.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 03:27:01 +1100 Subject: Re: time.monotonic() roll over From: Chris Angelico Cc: "python-list@python.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1417710430 news.xs4all.nl 2904 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:49462 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:81918 On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Ian Kelly : > >> The implication is that if you go more than 49 days without calling >> the function on old Windows systems, rollovers could be missed, which >> is good to know about. > > The implication is all but clear, but that was my suspicion. It would be > so bad that the documentation should be much more explicit about it. > > No, that would be a Python standard library bug, period. It's not a Python issue. Python can't do anything more than ask the system, and if the system's value rolls over several times a year, Python can't magically cure that. The information has already been lost. ChrisA