Talk:Path corner: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:Would "identical" satisfy everyone? It's true in both the lay and technical senses. —'''[[User:Maven|Maven]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Maven|talk]])</sup> 12:35, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT) | :Would "identical" satisfy everyone? It's true in both the lay and technical senses. —'''[[User:Maven|Maven]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Maven|talk]])</sup> 12:35, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT) | ||
Indeed, the term Identical is perfect. --[[User:Mark WiseCarver|wisemx]] 12:55, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 12:55, 23 September 2005
Just for clarification, func_trains still are implemented in source, they're just not in base.fgd —Ts2do 20:33, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT)
Also, path_corner and path_corner_crash are not just synonymous, as defined in pathcorner.cpp they are exactly the same entity. --wisemx 11:14, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=synonymous isn't that what I said? —Ts2do 14:26, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)
Would take an English Major but since by definition synonymous means Having the same or a similar meaning it has a slightly different understanding than exactly alike. --wisemx 09:23, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)
- Would "identical" satisfy everyone? It's true in both the lay and technical senses. —Maven (talk) 12:35, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)
Indeed, the term Identical is perfect. --wisemx 12:55, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)