Xref: utzoo news.groups:8540 comp.lsi:680 sci.electronics:5686
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ncar!noao!asuvax!mcdphx!dover!waters
From: waters@dover.azsps.mot.com (Mike Waters)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.lsi,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Call for discussion - Proposed VHDL News Group
Summary: EDIF counterpart group
Message-ID: <950@dover.azsps.mot.com>
Date: 28 Mar 89 15:12:48 GMT
References: <GROUT.89Mar9114129@cadillac.cadillac.cad.mcc.com> <1861@edison.GE.COM>
Reply-To: waters@dover.UUCP (Mike Waters)
Distribution: news
Organization: /etc/organization
Lines: 20

In article <1861@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes:
>I would rather see 
>  comp.lang.vhdl  
>than
>  comp.vhdl

>The increasing pollution of the upper level namespace is a problem.
>By using comp.lang.vhdl we can minimise the effect of the newsgroup
>and realise the comp.lang.* space is for all computer languages
>not just human programming languages.

I tend to agree with this viewpoint, with the EDIF counterpart then being
comp.lang.edif

I am holding off calling for votes on the EDIF group until this is resolved
for VHDL since I feel quite strongly that the two must be compatable here as
in the "real" world!

-- 
Mike Waters    AA4MW/7  ...!sun!sunburn!dover!waters OR moto@cad.Berkley.EDU