This is exactly how it is constantly written in the standard itself

[jarinislamfatema]

It is an abbreviation of the names of all types of arrows. Therefore, when you see a mention of ICOM, just remember that it means "Input, Control, Output, Mechanism". How does this translate? Input - Input Control - Control Output - Output Mechanism - Mechanism But in Russian-language publications one can often see a different, incorrect translation. Input and Output Input is mistakenly translated as Entrance. But with such a reading the meaning is distorted and the focus of attention is shifted.

After all, the entrance is associated with some doors, i.e. the list of senegal whatsapp phone numbers emphasis is on the fact that we must enter somewhere. Find the entrance and get somewhere through it. In fact, this is not so. In addition, an entrance is something that has certain coordinates. Therefore, we naturally think, "the entrance is here" or "the entrance is over there." And it will always be in this place. And it is logical that when we use the term "Entrance", we initially concentrate on the fact that we need an entrance, and the main thing is to find it and use this, so to speak, "door.

" And therefore, the location of the element of the incoming arrow in space seems very important. But this is wrong. Input is not an Entry, but an Input. And exactly the same situation is with the Output arrow, which is often mistakenly translated as "Exit". The thing is that we are describing a functional model, and our arrows border the function block (F). And, accordingly, we must concentrate on the fact that after its execution we must receive and output something. And in order to output something, we must first enter something.