On 2 June 2016 at 03:19, Victor Stinner email@example.com wrote:
5 timeit output ("1000000 loops, best of 3: ... per loop"):
5 perf.timeit outputs ("Average: 25 runs x 3 samples x 10^6 loops: ..."):
Looks good. IMHO the important bit is that
timeit is simple to
readily available, and gives just a number, which makes it very
attractive for people. Your output would achieve the same result
+- added, which is fine) assuming that it eventually
timeit in the standard library.
I know there are many good reasons for why getting just a single
number is not enough, but I'd say that we still need to achieve the
best practical results given that constrain. The results you posted
above seem to show that
perf.timeit is better than
that, and I believe that it's a great step forward.