Re: [artworks] What's in a name?

  • From: Martin Wuerthner <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 14:46:01 +0200

In message <4459F5DA.5010002@xxxxxxxx>
          Clive Bonsall <C.Bonsall@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Christopher Rayson wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 May 2006, Martin Wuerthner wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>So, the feature would be called "Subsumed arrows"? I think I still have
>>>a slight preference for "Coincident arrows". Any other opinions?
>> 
>> 
>> I'd refer to the current style for arrows as "Extended heads". I'm not
>> sure what the opposite to that would be, though. "Contracted"? > Chris
> 
> Not bad ... I would suggest:
> 
> "Integral" (i.e. part of the line) for the new style
> "Extended" for the current style

"Integral" is a great idea - very much to the point and probably 
easier to understand than "coincident". Certainly my new favourite, 
thanks Clive. We do not really need a name for the old style since I 
want to do it as an option button, but it is good to have "extended" 
in case it is needed.

Could anyone give me a Dutch expression for "integral"?

Martin
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner           MW Software          lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Other related posts: