no-more-secrets 0.1.0 (new formula)

[apjanke]

• Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same formula update/change?
• Have you built your formula locally prior to submission with brew install <formula> (where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting)?
• Does your submission pass brew audit --strict --online <formula> (after doing brew install <formula>)?

Description

Brian Barto's no-more-secrets TTY toy. Recreates the SETEC ASTRONOMY effect from the movie "Sneakers".

(This is basically a curses demo. Does not actually support universal decryption of all secret data, at least not in the 0.x release series.)

Hat tip to this week's Changelog Weekly mailing list for pointing me at this project.

[apjanke]

Build failure is just because the repository is young. Which it is. But it's already got almost 1,000 stars. Any objections to pulling this in now?

failed: brew audit no-more-secrets --strict --online

Stacktrace
        Error: 1 problem in 1 formula
no-more-secrets:
  * GitHub repository too new (<30 days old)  

[UniqMartin]

Not too happy with the single quotes we have banned almost everywhere else, but oh well …

[DomT4]

Should probably be reversed, so the single quotes are inside the desc element rather than wrapping it.

[DomT4]

Or just escape it and use double quotes in both places, but escaping is a bit messy in this situation.

[UniqMartin]

In my opinion, the inner quotes aren't even needed. After all it's Sneakers and not sneakers, so the quotes don't convey any additional information.

[apjanke]

But it is rendered in plain text in a terminal, so I can't italicize in this case. (Well, I could in some terminals, but we don't have markup for that, and I'm loath to put raw ANSI terminal-control codes in a description.) I think some typography is called for to indicate that it's a title, and not just a proper noun like a restaurant name. I chose double-quotes as a second-best substitute for italics; this seems to be a common convention when more advanced typesetting isn't available, at least in American English. And I've usually seen it in double quotes, not single quotes.

Happy to switch to escaped double quotes inside double quotes — it started out like this but I flipped it to single quotes on the outside just because it looked ugly and I thought folks would actually prefer the single-quote/double-quote inversion to backslashes. In the Ruby books I've read, that use is touted as one of the motivations for the interchangeability of double and single quotes in Ruby.

One more item for the Prose Style Guide, I guess. ;)

[UniqMartin]

I wasn't suggesting to use italics (and definitely am for sticking with plain text in the description), merely trying to say that the capitalized title sufficiently sticks out from the sentence case that is used in the rest of the description. Of course that's just my subjective feeling and as a non-native speaker it's difficult to judge how this is perceived by others.

[DomT4]

I think we should rewrite all formulae in Markdown to resolve this issue 😜. Would prefer the single quotes to be inside double quotes, but I'm not overly passionate about it.

[apjanke]

I switched it to single-quotes-in-double-quotes in 60eb33f, since that seems to be preferred and it still reads fine as both code and brew info no-more-secrets output.