This matches my understanding. N.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > So where does this leave us: > > 1. with very little data about real searches, which happen locally, via > DrRacket (would it matter if we could do a Guillaume-style data collection > for a few dozen students?) > > 2. with an understood deficit on our search; I haven't seen anyone deny this > > 3. a few options on improving search when we're on-line via JS calls to > search engines (this clearly requires some experimentation before we commit) > > 4a. John's wonderful idea of search the examples in our docs. Well, I imagine > he's searching for all one-argument functions, runs them on the example, and > produces the list of functions that compute acceptable results. Now, if we > hashed these searches, we get a crowd-sourcing problem -- perhaps. The more > users/students search for pure functions, the better we get. Perhaps. > > 4b. and we know that once text search is incorporated we may wish to look for > some form of semantic search. > > Did I overlook something? -- Matthias _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
