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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/bad574d9-f91f-438f-b75d-fee757d366a4n%40googlegroups.com.
