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

  • From: Martin Wuerthner <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 09:38:37 +0200

In message <Marcel-1.53-0504224850-0b0cx2*>
          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.

I do not agree. The standard arrowheads are clearly outside the 
original line you have drawn, so I do not think they could be mistaken 
as being "integrated".

Anyway, I think we can close the discussion now. It is unlikely that 
there is a single term that pleases everyone and I am quite happy to 
go with "integrated". Many thanks to everyone who contributed!

Martin Wuerthner           MW Software          lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: