[racket-dev] Roogle?

It was my Diplomarbeit finished in 1983, so that makes it 28 years now. 



On Aug 5, 2011, at 12:17 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:

> This idea is proposed roughly every 2-3 years for at least 30 years.
> I am not aware of anyone having made this idea "fly".
> 
> Shriram
> 
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Robby Findler
> <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> I too tried it (ages ago) and ended up roughly where Eli is, but I
>> didn't want to judge since I wasn't actually trying to use it for
>> something useful (and, as we all know, that can change how you use
>> things and how well they work for you). So I wonder if anyone has a
>> positive experience with this kind of searching in an "in anger" kind
>> of setting?
>> 
>> Robby
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
>>> 6 minutes ago, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
>>>> A few of us in the lab today were discussing how the Haskell
>>>> community has this nice tool called Hoogle
>>>> (http://www.haskell.org/hoogle) that lets you search Haskell docs by
>>>> type.
>>> 
>>> Are there any *practical* uses for that thing?
>>> 
>>> (Not a flame, I tried it a few times, and it looked like i might be
>>> useful in a language where you use point-free style to compose
>>> functions -- so you might know the type that you need `(a -> b -> c)
>>> -> (b -> c -> a)' but not the `flip' name.  But such serches don't
>>> see, to work.  So from this shallow scan, it looks like one of these
>>> things that sound cool on paper, but are useless in practice.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Is it at all feasible to supplement Racket's doc search to display
>>>> contracts
>>> 
>>> That won't be hard in itself, but the real problem is huge blocks of
>>> text in the results which would make it much less useful.
>>> 
>>>> and/or search by contract? (or type for TR)
>>> 
>>> That would be more difficult, since the search will need to do a lot
>>> more work.  I'm also guessing that given that we have much more *text*
>>> in contracts (as in "integer" and "resolved-module-path?"), it will
>>> make searching show way more false positives.
>>> 
>>> --
>>>          ((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/dev
>>> 
>> 
>> _________________________________________________
>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
> 
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev