Xref: utzoo news.groups:27567 comp.editors:2499 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!spool.mu.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!percy!nosun!tessi!larry From: larry@tessi.UUCP (Larry Gillespie) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.editors Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.editors.vi Message-ID: <638@curly.tessi.UUCP> Date: 5 Feb 91 23:51:46 GMT References: <14871@june.cs.washington.edu> <1991Feb04.133513.917@convex.com> Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Beaverton, Oregon Lines: 20 In article <1991Feb04.133513.917@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: >[...DELETED...] >If each editor has its own group, this would be lost. It's like making >comp.unix.shell.{csh,ksh,sh,rc,tcsh,...}. Now wouldn't that be silly? Makes perfect sense to me, as long as comp.unix.shell doesn't go away. Articles which are not shell-specific would still fall in that newsgroup, and presumably those which did get onto a topic specific to one shell would end up being followed-up to that appropriate newsgroup. The same goes for discussions of editors. Now, there are really only a few editors that are used enough by the Unix community that they would need their own newsgroup. Vi and Emacs obviously are two of those (maybe the only two?). The net is improved through the classification of articles, IMHO, as long as the generalized article is also easily found. -- -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