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

  • From: John Cartmell <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 22:59:31 +0100

On 04 May, Hans Heinsbroek <jheinsbroek@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 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

or packed and padded?

-- 
        John Cartmell   john@ followed by finnybank.com   0845 006 8822
        Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527         www.finnybank.com
        Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
                                                      

Other related posts: