One thing I miss in #Lisp coming from #Haskell is the ability to search for functions by their type signature. I hadn't realized how much I relied upon this ability until I lost it.
lispworks.com/documentation/Hy… maybe that could help you. #Lisp is interactive which means you are more likely to explore you program and your problem than thinking upfront to much about it. Sound quite strange at first but if you like always shift the view lisp is more like you get to what you want to do first and build stuff around it on the go. So its problem first
@Björn Gohla No, I mean that I can do that in Haskell, but not Lisp. Lisp doesn't really have type signatures, so such a feature wouldn't really make sense.
If you use generic functions (via `defgeneric` or `defmethod`) the resulting methods specialize on classes (and other things, but it isn't the same as all types). The slime inspector will show you all the method signatures for different methods, and you could no doubt write tools though I don't know if the method type signatures are available via standard API (it might be, I just haven't tried).
(roll m3tti)
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •CLHS: Function APROPOS, APROPOS-LIST
www.lispworks.comMarce Coll
in reply to (roll m3tti) • • •dziban
dziban.netBjörn Gohla
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •well, there is hoogle for that.
Although I agree, it should be possible to search by signature in GHCi for all modules in scope, without building an index first.
Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to Björn Gohla • •Björn Gohla
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •Dave Tenny
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •FYI in case it's useful to you.
If you use generic functions (via `defgeneric` or `defmethod`) the resulting methods specialize on classes (and other things, but it isn't the same as all types). The slime inspector will show you all the method signatures for different methods, and you could no doubt write tools though I don't know if the method type signatures are available via standard API (it might be, I just haven't tried).
Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to Dave Tenny • •