You are correct... that what all those bits for subseconds are hanging around for. It's supposed to be part of REBOL/Core. But, it would also create the problem of NOW returning that many digits. Do you want your email to be timestamped: 20-June-2000/7:35:42.532654-7:00. Maybe. Also, WRT calling NOW in a loop. Note that it is very expensive on some systems! Compare the loop timing on this line to that below that calls NOW. It takes nearly 10 times longer (under WinNT) if you call NOW. Ryan's loop should be up in the 400000 range rather than 38000. Amazing, isn't it. t: now/time n: 1 while [n < 1000000] [n: n + 1] n / third (now/time - t) -Carl At 6/19/00 05:10 PM -0700, you wrote: >I would think that /Core really needs to return the >known subsecond value when now/time is called. >RT obviously recognized the need because they allow you >to represent times down to the nanosecond (look at the >time! datatype description in users guide) and it seems >restrictive to me to not allow now/time to return the >nanoseconds part of the time. > >The only issue here is that every OS is different and some >don't allow subsecond timing and most only allow millisecond >timing. Plus the time functions for each OS are different if >you want this subsecond info. But it is possible to handle it. > >Once /Command comes out you will be able to write your own function >to do this - but then you'll be stuck with the OS you choose to write >it for so I really hope RT puts this in /Core. There really is no >good way to hack around it. > >Rodney Snell > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 4:26 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [REBOL] teeny-bits-of-time/2 > > >In my quest to count teeny bits of time in REBOL, I created the following >counting expression which makes note of how high REBOL can count in >increments of 1 within a single second. > >forever [ t: now > c: 1 > while [ now = t ][ c: c + 1 ] > print c > append b c > c: copy [] >] > >Of course, the results are entirely dependent upon the computer system you >are using and how many other tasks the computer may be processing at the >moment. Here are the results of running the expression on an Intel Celeron >333MHz workstation running Windows NT 4 (bear in mind the first number >returned is the remaining number of times the expression can count from 1 >within the second the expression begins): > >2498 >37594 >37261 >37103 >37313 >37555 >37551 >37274 >37472 >37563 >37195 >37539 >37556 >37496 >37579 >37386 >37540 >37108 >>> > >I guess this is a REBOL benchmarking expression of sorts. > >If you could run this expression continuously while running other REBOL >scripts--and if you could call the count from within the expression using >another REBOL script running in parallel--you could create a fraction of a >second based on the average count total during a specified period of time. > >For example, you call 'c from the expression when 'c = 2000. Perhaps the >average number of counts during the previous 10 seconds was 37,501 counts >per second. Then the fraction would be .053331 seconds. REBOL could >return a special 'now of > >>> now >== 19-Jun-2000/18:20:44.053331-5:00 > >or > >>> current-time: now/time >== 18:20:44.053331-5:00 > >Then you have your milliseconds, microseconds, and nanoseconds as >follows: > >>> print current-time/second >44 >>> print current-time/millisecond >5 >>> print current-time/microsecond >33 >>> print current-time/nanosecond >31 > >Of course, this is a very imprecise way of measuring sub-second intervals in > >REBOL. > >Any suggestions on how this might be implemented? > >-Ryan >
