Related
I've attempted to comb the repository (oh the joys of globally used single character names) without luck, but maybe I'm looking for the wrong things.
Seeing documentation for SDL.P would probably also work.
For future reference, is there a good way to go about finding data constructors in Haskell (as they seem to be difficult to grep for in the single-character case)?
Hackage has haddocks for the sdl2 package. If you click the "Index" link, then click "P", you can find a list of all identifiers that start with that letter -- including the P data type.
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/sdl2-2.4.1.0/docs/doc-index-P.html
Is this it? It’s all I could find using stackage search within the “sdl2” package.
https://www.stackage.org/haddock/lts-12.13/sdl2-2.4.1.0/SDL-Internal-Vect.html#v:P
Edit, how I did it:
You can limit the search offered by Stackage to a single package, using the URL: https://www.stackage.org/package/PACKAGE_NAME, so in this case https://www.stackage.org/package/sdl2.
Searching for operators, put them in parentheses, such as "(.)". For your question, search for "P" like so: https://www.stackage.org/lts-12.13/hoogle?q=P&package=sdl2
I have a compare routine ... but I need it to understand that when i search a "e" I also search for "é" or "è".
Is there an esay way to do that or do I really need to search and replace every accentued caractere before comparing ?
Thanks
You have to search and replace for every character since they are entirely different and no language will be able to figure out which characters you want to replace with what. Remember, programming languages don't speak english, they speak 010101 :)
Depending on the language you want to do this in, you may want to consider googling for a pre-existing library or plugin.
Does anybody know a Windows based searching tool that is easy to use and is programmer
friendly.
The functions I am looking for:
Ignore white space in search
= capable to find
myTestFunction ( $parameter, $another_parameter, $yet_another_parameter )
{ doThis();
using the query
myTestFunction($parameter,$another_parameter,$yet_another_parameter){doThis();
without Regexes.
Search code "semantically" (for me, it would have to be PHP):
Search in comments only
Search in function names only
Search for parameters that are named $xyz
Search in (insert code construct here) only
If there is none around, it's high time somebody developed it! :)
I have opened a bounty for this.
See our SD Search Engine. This is a language-sensitive search engine designed to search large code bases, with special language classifiers for C, C++, Java, C#, COBOL, JavaScript, Ada, Python, Ruby and lot of other languages, including your specific target langauge PHP (PHP4 and PHP5).
I think it does everything you requested.
It indexes the language elements so search across large code bases are extremely fast (Linux Kernal ~~ 7.5 Million lines --> 2.5 seconds). (The indexing step runs
on Windows, but the display engine is in Java.)
Search hits are shown in one-line context hit window showing the file and line number, as well as the line with the hit highlighted. Clicks on hits bring up the source code, tabs expanded appropriately, and the line count right even for languages which have odd line counting rules (such as GCC WRT form characters), with the hit line and hit text highlighted. Clicking in the source window will launch your favorite editor on the file.
Because it understands language elements, it ignores language-specific whitespace. It skips over comments unless you insist they be inspected. Searches thus ignore whitespace, comments and lineboundaries (if the language thinks lineboundaries are whitespace, which is why there are langauge-specific scanners). The query language allows you to specify which language tokens you want (specific tokens in quotes, or generic tokens such as identifiers I, numbers N, strings S, operators O and punctuation P) with constraints on the token value as well as a series of tokens.
Your example search:
myTestFunction($parameter,$another_parameter,$yet_another_parameter){doThis();
would be expressed to the search engine precisely as:
I=myTestFunction '(' I ',' I ',' I ')' '{' I=dothis '(' ')' ';'
but it would probably be easier (less typing) to find it as:
I=myTest* ... I=dothis
where I=myTest* means an identifier starting with myTest and ... means "near".
The Search Engine also offer regular expressions searches on the text, if you insist.
So you still have grep-like searches (a lot slower than indexed searches)
but with the hit window and source display windows too.
I use ack really successfully for this kind of thing, particularly when trying to find things in large codebases. I run it linux myself but I don't see any reason why it won't run on windows or in Cygwin at the very least. Check it out, I think you'll find it is exactly what you're looking for.
Search code "semantically" (for me, it would have to be PHP):
For this you could (and I think should) use some custom code using token_get_all()
See also the available tokens
Ignore white space in search
A simple regex should be sufficient. It depends on your regex-library, but most come with a whitespace modifier/flag.
For my Windows desktop search, I use Agent Ransack. I use this as a replacement for the windows search.
You can use regular expressions, but there is a nice entry screen if you want to avoid entering them directly.
Take a look at Google Desktop API, it has very powerful set of methods to do what you're looking for.
Of course it requires you to have the Google Desktop installed.
After reviewing it a little, it provides some functionality but not that specific as what you require.
I really like Crimson Editor and it allows RegEx searches. It has helped me a bunch over the past six years. I think it will fit your needs. Try it.
I use TextPad for searching code files in Windows. It has a very handy find-in-files function (Search / Find In Files) and you can use regex which should meet any search requirements. In the search results it will list the file location, line number and a snippet from that line.
One of the problems I have with Google is that it seems to strip special characters like dots, commas and some other special characters, which are usually what I'm looking for when I'm trying to find anything programming-related
ex: django # sign returns irrelevant data. Perhaps you know a way (or an alternative/technique) to make this possible?
Related Questions
Effective Googling for short names
Why would M# be harder to Google than C#?
If you're looking for actual code examples, you can try code.google.com. Otherwise, the safest bet is to find the main website for whatever language you've got questions about and look around there, although a little digging is likely to turn it up on google.
Have you tried http://www.google.com/codesearch?
When building an application, is there any meaningful difference between the idea of "Find" vs "Search" ? Do you think of them more or less as synonymous?
I'm asking in terms of labeling for application UI as well as API design.
Finding is the completion of searching.
If you might not succeed in finding something, call the feature "Search". For example text search in an editor can fail due to no matches - then calling it "Find" would be lying.
On the other hand: in an established job searching site, you can say "Find a PHP job" because you know that for (almost) anything your users want, there will be offerings. This also makes it sound confident, positive and energetic.
According to Steve Krug in Don't Make Me Think, when talking about usability for a publicly-facing web site, use the word Search for a search box and nothing else. (He specifically prohibits "Find", "Quick Find", "Quick Search", and all variations.)
The rationale is that "Search" is the most commonly understood term, so it's what people will look for when they aren't thinking, and you don't want your users to have to think (at all).
I would say that "find" is focused on getting a single, exact match. As in the example above, you "find" the perfect PHP job.
OTOH, you "search" for jobs that meet your criteria. Searching is what you do when you want to graze through several results. "Search" returns pages of results. "Find" is closer to "I'm feeling lucky."
Of course, the terms get used interchangeably sometimes. But, I think that's the essence of the difference.
In many applications, find means "find on the current page/screen", while search means "search the entire database/Internet." Web browsers, online help, and other applications seem to make this distinction.
Within most applications...
Find typically refers to locating text within the document at hand and jumps to the next occurrence.
Search typically refers to locating multiple documents (or other objects) and returns a list.
I wrote the built-in Find command in Acrobat 1.0 and worked on the full text Search engine for Acrobat 2.0 and 3.0.
Most software at that point that handled large amounts of text had a way to locate an exact match to a single word or phrase and called it Find/Find Next. This is what we called it in Acrobat 1.0. We knew from the start that this wasn't enough to handle entire repositories of documents, so we needed a way to scan across a whole set. We couldn't use Find since that was already in the UI and had established behavior, so we settled on Search. The decision was based on little more than the relatively small set of common words that convey the action.
Even harder is to come up with a reasonable icon for it. Our initial take was to use something similar to the old Yellow Pages logo:
(source: yellowpagecity.com)
but the lawyers shot that down - it was too close. We couldn't use a magnifying glass as we had zoom functions tied to that. We went with binoculars.
I don't think that there is any difference.
But then again, I'm Portuguese. :P
Find = Discover exact
Example: We write "Please find attached" in an email. We don't write "Please search attached".
Search = Discover exact + Related match
Example: Google Search
"Seek and ye shall find"
"Search and you will find"
One angle that (surprisingly) no one has mentioned, is that in English when you say you search something, that something is the thing you're searching within, not the thing you're trying to find. So unless you add the word 'for' (as in, to search for something), the two words are fundamentally different.
It becomes obvious with an example:
Find the room.
Search the room.
Two very different tasks! The first defines the object of your search. The second defines the scope of your search.
That's not completely irrelevant when talking about UIs. If your app has a search feature where the user can specify both the source and the object of their search, you might choose to use the words this way. For example:
Search: Current document
Find: "positive and energetic"
Yes, as some others have pointed out, the word 'Find' does imply a successful search, but let's not start calling app designers liars for using it when success isn't guaranteed. It's become a pretty standard term for searching a document for a particular string.
I think search is more generic and more suitable for text search. Find sounds more like 'find a specific record or a group of records'
After searching You find something.
Search for an answer on stackoverflow that you may find it.
For me Find is the success of a Search, that is to Find is to identify the location of something that's known to exist.
Search should always be used when you have no control on what the user is looking for.
Find talks about a specific one.
Search does not talk about a specific one.
Did you find the picture I requested yet?
No? Please search on internet. I need to present it in an hour.
Another one is below
Please find the attachment in this email.
(or)
You'll find the attachment below.
(or)
Please find attached.
here, we use find because it is a specific document which is attached to email.
we don't use the search here, as there is nothing to search in a larger domain.
Search is the primary interface to the Web for many users. Search should be global (not scoped to a subsite) and available from every page; booleans should be made intimidating since users usually use them wrong
Read this: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/search-and-you-may-find/