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

  • From: Martin Wuerthner <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 19:05:39 +0200

In message <4e21d54147Artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          Richard Underwood <Artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 04 May, Martin Wuerthner <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Integral" is a great idea - very much to the point and probably
>> easier to understand than "coincident".
> For what its worth, I'm not so sure that it is easier to understand
> because an integral arrowhead potentialy sounds like a particular type of
> arrowhead (mathematical?) rather than the behaviour of the arrowheads.

Yes, this is probably where "integrated" wins over "integral" - sounds 
less like a specific technical term.

Martin Wuerthner           MW Software          lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: