[comp.lsi] Call for discussion - Proposed VHDL News Group

markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) (03/12/89)

Again, how about creating comp.cad first and then splitting it if
the traffic about various topics merits that.

(I don't know about your site, but comp.lsi.cad doesn't exist)


Mark Zenier    uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz    markz@ssc.uucp
                            uunet!amc!
                      uw-beaver!tikal!

rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (03/13/89)

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.

waters@dover.azsps.mot.com (Mike Waters) (03/28/89)

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