Suggestion to Follow BenchmarkTools More Closely

[alfaromartino]

Just a couple of suggestions for this superb blazingly fast package! In summary, I propose following BenchmarkTools more closely regarding layout.

Thanks for your work!

1. Adding "0 allocations: 0 bytes" when there are no allocations, instead of printing nothing. This follows @btime and is also consistent when there's at least one allocation with @b. Example

7.107 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes) # this is @btime
7.300 ns                          # this is @b

# but 
34.694 ns (1 allocation: 896 bytes) # this is @btime
33.846 ns (1 allocs: 896 bytes)     # this is @b

It might seem trivial, but it becomes important when you have several lines of results, you're new to the package, and for teaching.

2. Add display by default as BenchmarkTools to reduce boilerplate code. Right now, to get the same results when you execute a whole code snippet, we need to explicitly add display to see the result. Example:

using BenchmarkTools
using Chairmarks

x = rand(100)
foo1(x) = x^2
foo2(x) = x^3

# this displays all the results directly when the whole code is executed
@btime foo1.($x)
@btime foo2.($x)

# you need to add display to get the same behavior as above
display(@b foo1.($x))
display(@b foo2.($x))

3. This is also a suggestion, but probably it's too late. Maybe change @b for a more explicit name? I can imagine that reading code with @b without any context calls for confusion.