🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov10.231730.8716@cs.brown.edu> jgm@cs.brown.edu (Jonathan Monsarrat) writes:
<
<Yes, it would be nice to have a new newsgroup, which would include
<source postings.

Yes, I too would like to see a comp.sources.postscript.

<Could this new newsgroup also be for more general discussion
<of programming PostScript? Our beloved comp.lang.postscript seems
<to be more than half devoted to asking and answering questions about
<using PostScript. I think that this is a fine, fine service that 
<PostScript-ers provide to each other and to newcomers.

Technically no.  A sources group is only for sending sources.  To have
discussions on those sources would require another group:

	comp.sources.postscript.d

<Still, it would be nice to concentrate directly on programming aspects.

I can agree with this.

<This goal would probably clash with the idea of having a source just for
<posting large PostScript pictures, which as Kevin noted, are really
<just big pictures with very little interesting PostScript. There
<are thousands of tools that produce PostScript out there, most of them
<not really being PostScript but being Framemaker or MacDraw or something.

What is wrong with sources from FrameMaker?  Maybe they are structured in
such a way that they could be used for generic applications.

<Therefore, I guess I'd suggest having a newsgroup for "programs
<and ideas", not for "sources" which seems to hint at a newsgroup
<in which nothing happens except large things get posted.
<
<Here is a suggestion name:
<
<comp.graphics.postscript
<
<There already exists comp.graphics, comp.graphics.avs, comp.graphics.explorer,
<comp.graphics.research, comp.graphics.visualization, comp.graphics.animation,
<comp.graphics.gnuplot, comp.graphics.opengl

I've missed those groups somewhere along the line.

<Having suggested one alternative, let me suggest the reverse now
<just to be confusing!
<
<Most comp.lang groups are mostly for talking about the languages,
<so perhaps the comp.lang.postscript group should do that and
<the Usenet group for *using* postscript would be
<
<comp.text.postscript    or  comp.graphics.postscript
<
<Anyway, as usual I am probably way out in left field. Hope to hear
<some more opinions on this subject!

For starters, I'd stick with the following groups:

	comp.sources.postscript
	comp.sources.postscript.d
-- 
      harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com