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

  • From: "Samuel Kock" <samuel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:47:09 +0200

----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Wuerthner" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [artworks] What's in a name?

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"?

How about "geintegreer" ?


Other related posts: