From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dirk Herrmann Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: benchmarking framework Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:03:08 +0200 (CEST) Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1027253063 16172 127.0.0.1 (21 Jul 2002 12:04:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:04:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17WFRl-0004Cj-00 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:04:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17WFRe-0005PD-00; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 08:04:14 -0400 Original-Received: from sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de ([134.169.132.52]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17WFQd-0005NW-00; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 08:03:11 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (dirk@localhost) by sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA07884; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:03:08 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Neil Jerram In-Reply-To: Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:851 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:851 On 20 Jul 2002, Neil Jerram wrote: > Did you consider using symbols rather than strings for "user:", > "benchmark:" and so on? I think that would be more readable, and > marginally easier to process programmatically as well. You are right, I have changed "user:" to 'user and so on. I would have liked to keep the colon for readability, but the printed form of 'user: is even worse to read. > Also, from the PHB department :-), is there a single headline number > that could usefully be boiled down from these results? I don't know which kind of information would be most useful here: One might like to see the total execution time of the whole benchmarking suite including the framework code, or one might want to see the summarized execution time of the benchmarks only. Both would be easy to add. So, what should be used for a summary - maybe even some different solution? Best regards, Dirk _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel