> It's not trivial Did you miss the comparison? The "more trivial"? The context of my response? Please read the parent comment I responded to, treating my com

> It's not trivial Did you miss the comparison? The "more trivial"? The context of my response? Please read the parent comment I responded to, treating my comment as standalone and adding some new meaning makers no sense. String search is more trivial than a search that involves an interpretation of the code structure and meaning. I have no idea why you wish to start a discussion about such trivial statement. > * because a full-text search (especially in a large codebase) will return a lot of irrelevant info?* It doesn't do that for me but instead works very well. I don't know what you do with your symbol names, but I have barely any generic function names, the vast majority of them are pretty unique. No idea how you use search, but I'm never looking for "doSomething(", it's always "doSomethingVerySpecific()", or some equally specific string constant. I don't have the problems you tell me I should have, and my use case was the subject of my comment, as should be clear, as well as my comment being a response to a specific point made by the parent comment.