FWIW, you can use Google to do that. The search query
site:docs.racket-lang.org file browser dialog
shows https://docs.racket-lang.org/mrlib/Path_Dialog.html as the first search result. The page also has a link to get-file
and put-file
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/377da13a-dafe-4558-b21c-f71cd8238a93n%40googlegroups.com.
But content search is also unsatisfactory in many situations. As an example, take a look at Python’s documentation, which has the content search. I searched for “list” (https://docs.python.org/3/search.html?q=list&check_keywords=yes&area=default), hoping to find the documentation for the list function, and the result that I wanted is the 20th one. Earlier search results include the readline library, because it contains the content “the history list”, and a code example “reprlib.repr(set(‘supercalifragilisticexpialidocious’))”. This problem virtually doesn’t exist with the indexed term search in Racket.
I'm not saying that there’s nothing to improve. I think making it possible to do a content search, perhaps via a query like content:"file browser dialog"
, might be a good idea. But I definitely think we should not take the current search functionality away.
True, I’m forced to do this when the search won’t do. It’s too bad the default search doesn’t work as well. Would it be shameful to use Google as the main search engine, as many others do? I’m sure most wouldn’t appreciate having to depend on Google for this. I’ll look at the code just so I understand.
On Aug 17, 2021, at 9:40 PM, Jens Axel Søgaard <jens...@soegaard.net> wrote: