yes, I agree. The same goal can be achieved by combining these functions, thanks for your reply. 在2021年7月21日星期三 UTC+8 下午9:20:33<mflatt> 写道：
> I don't think we can change the `time` form from `racket/base` without > breaking existing uses. For better or worse, various scripts parse the > output, especially since the output format has been stable. > > But there's nothing special about the pre-defined `time` form. A new > form could use `time-apply` plus `current-memory-use` --- or even > functions like `current-inexact-monotonic-milliseconds` and > `current-gc-milliseconds instead of `time-apply` --- to get information > to display. > > At Mon, 12 Jul 2021 06:37:38 -0700 (PDT), leonardo lv wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Whether the (time) procedure can be similar to Chez Scheme, when > printing > > the time consumed by expressions, it also prints out how many bytes are > > allocated, which is very beneficial for debugging and optimization. > > > > * 19 collections 0.201254290s elapsed cpu time, including 0.183228711s > > collecting 0.201678000s elapsed real time, including 0.183665000s > > collecting 160012160 bytes allocated, including 113015168 bytes > > reclaimed* > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/bad574d9-f91f-438f-b75d-fee757d366a4n%40googlegroups.com.
