[racket-dev] Roogle?

I suspect your related work section missed a few. (-:

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Matthias Felleisen
<matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>