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

  • From: Hans Heinsbroek <jheinsbroek@xxxxxx>
  • To: artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 23:48:50 +0100 (BST)

In <URL:news:local.artworks> on Thu 04 May, Martin Wuerthner wrote:
> In message <4e21d54147Artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>           Richard Underwood <Artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
Then how about the even less techie "indented" or even "proper"
(the last one being my personal favourite)?

The word "integrated" imo fits the original arrows too
because when the option is selected the arrowhead is integrated
in[*] the line.
Wether it is in place or not doesn't matter, it has become an
integral part of the line.

<fx: Crawls back in shell/>

[*] not sure about the grammar here
jheinsbroek@xxxxxx    Sent from a Risc PC near me. (RISC OS 4.02)

Other related posts: