8 minutes ago, Anthony Cowley wrote: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > > That's not surprising -- the question is how much the > > search-by-type feature is used vs the plain by-name searches. > > Search-by-type is the main useful feature. Another search engine, > hayoo, often does better on name-based searches covering > hackage. Some people run local instances of hoogle as it is > relatively straightforward to hook into emacs and will index all the > types and names from all the packages you have installed locally.
OK, that sounds closer to what I asked... (And on the positive side.) > > We already have that kind of exploratory searching, since "types" > > in the contract system are real functions. > > > > I guess that this is another way to make the point: in Haskell and > > other statically typed languages types are second-class, but in > > Racket they're first class so looking for a type name will get you > > information because it's also a binding. (And the same goes for > > TR, only those are not runtime values.) > > Searching by type names and aliases works fine: > <http://www.haskell.org/hoogle/?hoogle=String> Yes, what I'm saying is that in Haskell, if you have a tool that searches for bound values, you won't get types, therefore you need to have a specific tool (or extension of one) that can search types. In Racket, then "contract type" is `string?', which is something that you can look for even without a special by-contract search. > Hoogle really is quite good, don't sell it short! I'm not -- the above point is in no way saying anything bad about it, it's just an observation about the differences between the two language worlds. -- ((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