On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Peter Pentchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:55:47AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:08:02AM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: >> >> > * Package name : bomstrip >> > Programming Lang: Awk, Brainf*ck, C, C++, Forth, Haskell, OCaml, Ook!, >> > Pascal, PHP, Perl, PostScript, Python, Ruby, sed, >> > Unlambda >> >> All these programming languages got me wondering. Apparently the same >> program is implemented in all these languages. But you only need one to >> get the desired functionality. Also, I see the sed variant is just a >> one-liner. Perhaps it is better if this functionality is merged with a >> package like coreutils or recode, if it is not already there someway. > > As the author writes on his website, the whole point of the bomstrip > project being a collection of implementations is more of a social / > political goal of "spreading the word", showing how easy it is, > bringing attention to the broken UTF-8 text files that some programs > generate, and so on. > > IMHO, the distribution also servers as a nice way to demonstrate > a simple (well, admittedly, a *very* simple :)) task done in various > languages. > > Hm. Okay, so maybe the two command-line utilities and the collection > might be separated. IMHO, the collection *is* still useful on its own :) > If others share this opinion, I may either create two separate packages, > or just remove the command-line utilities and file a wishlist bug > against coreutils or textutils or something like that. How does that > strike you? What do others think?
Would the collection really be useful in /binary/ form, however? If the goal is to show how easy it is to write, installing a bunch of functionally identical /usr/bin/bomstrip.{c,ada,cplusplus,haskell,ocaml} binaries won't demonstrate much :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]