5 minutes ago, Jakub Piotr Cłapa wrote:
> On 11.11.10 22:08, Horace Dynamite wrote:
> > *slaps forehead*
> >
> > Thank you Eli & Jay. :^)
> >
> > Horace.
> >
> > On 11/11/2010 18:36, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> >> In case it is not clear Horace, because it is inexact, there are
> >> numbers after the decimal, representing nanoseconds, etc.
>
> And in the case this is still not clear ;) the inexact part is not only
> about formal inexactnes but about limited timer resolution as well.
> Despite the CPU clock ticking more than once each nanosecond the
> procesor and OS does not really count the time this accurately. On
> normal OSes I would expect microsecond accuracy at best (but that is a
> guess; I didn't measure).
Easy to do, just run
(- (current-inexact-milliseconds) (current-inexact-milliseconds))
a few times.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
