Re: Arrow Syntax is Dumb
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg30678] Re: Arrow Syntax is Dumb
- From: "Oliver Friedrich" <oliver.friedrich at tz-mikroelektronik.de>
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 02:22:19 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <9n17vd$24n$1@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
I agree with you. But considering the complexity of the Mathematica system it is amazingly logical and consistent. But anyway, there's nothing on earth which couldn't be further optimized, except Pilsner Urquell beer ;-). I'm sure the developers of Wolfram also read this newsgroup, so they will collect these suggestions. Oliver Friedrich "aes" <siegman at stanford.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:9n17vd$24n$1 at smc.vnet.net... > Sorry for inflammatory Subject: [mg30678] [mg30678] line . . but I'd suggest that having > the syntax > > Line[ {{x1, y1}, {x2, y2}} ] > > but > > Arrow[ {x1, y1}, {x2, y2} ] > > is, shall we say, a "considerably less than optimum" design choice from > the user's viewpoint. > > I see the point, that an arrow (at this time anyway) has only two > points, while a line may have multiple points, > > Nonetheless, it seems common sense that an arrow *is* nothing more than > a two-point line, and therefore it would be a whole lot more consistent > to use the same syntax. > > A user might for example have some Lines in a graphic pointing from text > labels to data points, and then learn for the first time about Arrow. > It would seem obvious to just change those "Lines" to "Arrows" in the > notebook. > > And, there could be lots of future uses for "broken arrows" -- i.e., > multiple-segment arrows, which zig-zag around some obstacle in a graphic > before reaching their target -- in which case consistency with the Line > syntax would be even more useful. >