On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 07:59:34AM +0900, phluid61 (Matthew Kerwin) wrote:
> 
> Issue #8640 has been updated by phluid61 (Matthew Kerwin).
> 
> 
> tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 01:04:37PM +0900, phluid61 (Matthew Kerwin) wrote:
> >  > Since the discussion has moved towards defining two separate methods {#elapsed => (float)s and #elapsed_nanoseconds => (int)ns} I do prefer a keyword argument {in: :nanoseconds}.  Sorry for wavering back and forth on the issue so noisily.
> >  
> >  I don't care if a method exists that has kw args, but I would not use
> >  it.  The things we need to time in Rails are fairly fast (say 200ms on
> >  the slow side) and happen frequently, which means that object
> >  allocations matter.  A kwarg method will end up allocating a hash on
> >  every call.
> >  
> >  If someone else wants to make a method with kwargs, I think that's
> >  great, but it's not what I'm pushing for here.  My point is to reduce
> >  object allocations.  :-)
> >  
> 
> In that case, would #8096 be a better proposal?  Since that one doesn't even allocate a Time object.

I don't think so.  We need subsecond resolution, which (if we used
#8096) would require a possible bignum allocation (from what I gather in
the ticket).

-- 
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/