Re: New science section

[Mike Miller <miller5@uiuc.edu>]

>>>>> "Drake" == Drake Diedrich <Drake.Diedrich@anu.edu.au> writes:

    > On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 10:32:48AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith
    > wrote:
    >>  What do people think of my calls?  Should all plotting
    >> packages go in science?

    >    I'm inclined to think non-science-specific data plotters
    > don't really belong in science.  The way I see the section
    > used is to hold packages that are specific to a field
    > (biology, chemistry, physics, geology, oceanography,...),
    > so that scientists can skip right to the science section
    > and browse there.  

IMHO, it is more intuitive to look in the science section for
data plotters than in the math section.  Plotting routines that
are only capable of plotting functions may belong in math, but
anything that can also plot data points should definitely go into
science.  

Mike

-- 
Michael A. Miller                miller5@iucf.indiana.edu
  Krannert Institute of Cardiology, IU School of Medicine
  mmiller@debian.org