kamat@uceng.UC.EDU (Govind N. Kamat) (11/13/89)
In article <1989Nov9.201016.13049@talos.uucp> kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) writes: I propose that the newsgroup "comp.emacs" be renamed to "comp.editors.emacs". Sounds like a good idea. -- Govind N. Kamat College of Engineering kamat@uceng.UC.EDU University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA
jbw@bucsf.bu.edu (Joe Wells) (11/14/89)
In article <1989Nov9.201016.13049@talos.uucp> kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) writes:
I propose that the newsgroup "comp.emacs" be renamed to
"comp.editors.emacs".
The categorization of Emacs as a text editor by placing it under
"comp.editors" seems reasonable and proper, much more so than
placing it under "comp" alone. Although Emacs has been extended
to do many things seemingly tangential to editing, its central
function is still text editing and it should be classified as such.
I disagree that its central function is text editing. If you took a
survey, I think you would find that more than half of the time spent using
Emacs was not for text editing.
--
Joe Wells <jbw@bucsf.bu.edu>
jbw%bucsf.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu
...!harvard!bu-cs!bucsf!jbwkjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (11/15/89)
I write: > Although Emacs has been extended to do many things seemingly > tangential to editing, its central function is still text editing > and it should be classified as such. Joe Wells writes: > I disagree that its central function is text editing. If you took a > survey, I think you would find that more than half of the time spent using > Emacs was not for text editing. If we're talking about GNU and Unipress Emacs, perhaps. But what about JOVE, uEmacs, MicroGnuEmacs, and Freemacs? The function common to all of these is text editing. The name change is not supposed to limit or exclude anything; it's sole purpose is to categorize. I'm not proposing that the current discussion format or anything else about the group be changed, just the name. As is, the Emacs group is not categorized at all, except under "comp", and that's not much better than giving the group its own hierarchy.
lori@hacgate.UUCP (Lori Barfield) (11/15/89)
Joe Wells writes: > I disagree that [Emac's] central function is text editing. If you took a > survey, I think you would find that more than half of the time spent using > Emacs was not for text editing. True, but if I were new to this, and looking for an Emacs group, I'd only think to look under 'editors'. When I need a newspaper, I go to a newsstand, not a shopping mall. ...lori
baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) (11/16/89)
From article <1989Nov14.200214.20147@talos.uucp>, by kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones):
+ I write:
+ > Although Emacs has been extended to do many things seemingly
+ > tangential to editing, its central function is still text editing
+ > and it should be classified as such.
+ Joe Wells writes:
+ > I disagree that its central function is text editing. If you took a
+ > survey, I think you would find that more than half of the time spent using
+ > Emacs was not for text editing.
Forget about splitting comp.emacs (however renamed). The readers are
perfectly happy with it the way it is.
The results of a poll I took in comp.emacs (about splitting the newsgroup) a
few of weeks ago will soon be posted.
Comp.emacs should be left as a single group.
--
steve baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM, baur%venice.SEDD.TRW.COM@uunet.UU.NETdsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (11/16/89)
In article <144@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM>, baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) writes: > Forget about splitting comp.emacs (however renamed). The readers are > perfectly happy with it the way it is. What split? We're discussing a simple renaming. I'm all for it, and anything else that makes the hierarchy more logical. Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
rowe@cme.nist.gov (Walter Rowe) (11/17/89)
>>>>> On 16 Nov 89 13:38:13 GMT, dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) said:
Dave> What split? We're discussing a simple renaming. I'm all for
Dave> it, and anything else that makes the hierarchy more logical.
Here! Here! No matter what you say, Emacs is still an editor.
Though it has evolved into something more functional than most, its
still an editor. That was the intent when it was written.
Dave> Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
Walter Rowe (rowe@cme.nist.gov)pjnesser@fenchurch.mit.edu (Philip John Nesser) (11/19/89)
I must agree that emacs is much more than a text editor, and thus should remain where it is in the news structure. There are too many possible places for it to go(and not just comp.editors). It could be argued that it should be comp.os.emacs. I won't argue about it but I wanted to express my opinion on the topic. ---> Philip J. Nesser Student Staff Software Engineer MIT EECS Educational Computer Facility