Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 08:10:40PM -0500, mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:
> This is a more bothersome system than I proposed because it requires
> every single group to rate every single package.
No it doesn't; it requires them to rate the packages they care about, one
way or another (must-have - mustn't have).
> My proposal is to
> pick criteria that cannot be disputed (such as the existence of "fuck"
> in the program's output) and let people choose which criteria are
> suitable for their system. A separate "ratings" file, even multiple,
> could be certainly be maintained; its content would show what categories
> contained what programs.
That's kind of what I started off thinking about, then I thought "well,
why not allow a little more flexibility..."
> Sidenote: Common Lisp isn't a functional programming language and there
> are certain people, to remain unnamed, out there who would assert this
> matter a great deal more, to say the least. (Which is why I was careful
> to mention both Haskell and SML).
OK, I hold up my hands and admit that I did Electronic Engineering and not
Computer Science... in fact I'm (only) just starting to teach myself Common
Lisp at the moment. It does look a lot like a functional language from where
I'm standing now, though. Not a particularly pure one, but...
SML I may look at later. All the CS types I knew at university were always
whining about having to use SML for all their coursework, so...
> Consider that the vast majority of Common Lisp Object System implementations
> are implemented using techniques outlined in the "Art of the Meta Object
> Protocol"[1], and see how it has resulted in one of the most flexible
> object systems available.
>
> [1] http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu/mop/
I'll have a look at that later.
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
Your boss climbed the corporate ladder, wrong by wrong.
Reply to: