| 1 |
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:23:10 -0500, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> actually, now that i look, arent all the sci-* categories needlessly |
| 3 |
> pedantic ? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Better to be too pedantic and descriptive than too concise and ambiguous. ;) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> sci-astronomy -> sci-astro |
| 8 |
> sci-biology -> sci-bio |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This one can easily end up like the geo* argument. Biology? |
| 11 |
Bioinformatics? (again you could argue that they should be under the |
| 12 |
same category). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> sci-geosciences -> sci-geo |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As has already been pointed out "geo" could mean geology, geosciences, |
| 17 |
geochemistry and I'm sure there's others (although I suppose you could |
| 18 |
argue they could all fall under the same category). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> sci-mathematics -> sci-math |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This one I agree with, I can't see anyone being confused by |
| 23 |
math/mathematics - no-one I know ever refers to maths by its full |
| 24 |
name. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Paul |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rogue Tory |
| 30 |
www.roguetory.org.uk |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives