Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!percy!nosun!tessi!larry
From: larry@tessi.UUCP (Larry Gillespie)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: comp.editors.vi
Message-ID: <634@curly.tessi.UUCP>
Date: 5 Feb 91 20:04:37 GMT
References: <1991Jan31.055737.24125@cec1.wustl.edu> <1991Jan31.140256.1523@convex.com>
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Beaverton, Oregon
Lines: 24

In article <1991Jan31.140256.1523@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>How come?  Is there something not being discussed in this group that
>would get discussed more by having the vi stuff elsewhere?
>
>I notice we've got comp.emacs, and gnu.emacs.*, so it's not like
>comp.editors.vi would actually fit in with existing practices.

Well, it doesn't make sense to have comp.emacs where it is, anyway.
It *should* be comp.editors.emacs, by all right of logic.  I mean, should
we have a comp.vi, or a comp.spell, or whatever else, for goodness sake?
No.  Emacs doesn't deserve a second-level group name.  It doesn't make any
sense to have an applications program in that position, the way the
newsgroup structure is organized today.  I presume that comp.emacs
predates comp.editors, but, yes, a reorganization is in order, IMHO.
Let's create comp.editors.vi, and rename comp.emacs to comp.editors.emacs,
as somebody else mentioned (though he wasn't in favor of it).  Who wants
to send a call for discussion to news.groups and news.announce.newgroups?


-- 
-Larry Gillespie
Test Systems Strategies, Inc., 8205 SW Creekside Pl., Beaverton, Ore.  97005
(503) 643-9281
tessi!larry@uunet.UU.NET   -or-   sun!nosun!tessi!larry