gh-80642: timeit - Additional changes for autorange

[alessandrocucci]

• make the 0.2s time configurable;
• have timeit and repeat methods (and functions) fall back
  on autorange if the number is set to 0 or None.

https://bugs.python.org/issue36461

• Issue: timeit: Additional changes for autorange #80642

[bsolomon1124]

Was there consideration given to adding autorange() as a module-level function, in addition to being an instance method of Timer as is added here?

Since timeit already uses a "prebound method pattern" to put timeit() and repeat() there, maybe autorange() belongs with them?

[alessandrocucci]

that was not discussed in issue36461
I personally don't think it's necessary, do you have an use case?

[bsolomon1124]

Actually, looking at things more carefully, I don't think it's necessary, since it looks like autorange() is really just meant to be used in timeit()/repeat(), which are already available as module-level functions. So please just disregard my previous comment.

[Carreau]

if i understand this correctly max_time_taken is an ill-chosen name, it should be min_time_taken, shouldn't it ?

[alessandrocucci]

There is a proposal to rename it to "target_time", as Steven wrote in https://bugs.python.org/issue36461

[rhettinger]

ISTM that almost the entire point of having autorange() was to avoid the need for configuration.

[iritkatriel]

This has merge conflicts now.

[bedevere-bot]

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

[StanFromIreland]

This PR has been stale for over three years, closing in favour of #140283