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
