In message <1d594b224e.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Martin Wuerthner <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In message <86ae48224e.HzN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > DitUnDat@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >> With both the filled and unfilled circles, there remains one question, > >> however: Where exactly should they be positioned with respect to the > >> line anchor point? [...] > > > > Well, I think you might want to make it flexible, that is allow for > > these anchor points to be considered the arrowhead: > > > > 1. the tip is the outside of the circle on the opposite side of the > > arrows line so that you can position it so that the circle touches > > e.g. some rectangle > > > > 2. the tip is the centre of the circle > > > > Perhaps easiest is to define the circle arrowhead twice with one of the > > two behaving as 1. and the other as 2. > > Even better, the way I have defined them now makes them behave as > described in 2. with "Integrated" off and as described in 1. with > "Integrated" on, so a single arrow definition is enough. Knowing your perfection I thus assume that the option "integrated" is not a global one but one per arrow! -- Herbert Herbert zur Nedden German Archimedes Group http://www.gag.de Herausgeber DER deutschen RISC OS-Zeitschrift.