On Sunday 26 March 2017 22:53:59 Martin Smith wrote: > >Yes, using vector for an array type was not Stepanov's best choice of > >terms (he says so himself), but what you're doing is like arguing that > >"debt" should be spelled "det". Yes, it should. No, it isn't. :) > > I disagree, but if we have accepted that a vector is a collection, then a > polygon is a vector. Or it at least has a vector.
No and no. A vector is a collection of points and so is a polygon. Both are even ordered. But there are good reasons for a polygon to be represented as something else than a vector. E.g. a BSP. Or a platform-specific data type. On some platforms, where everything is a path, it might even make some sense to back QPolygon with QPainterPath. Cf. several paint engine implementations which first have to convert to QPP. (the API is lying here, btw: QPainer::drawPolygon(const QPoint *, int) suggests that you can manage the storage youself to avoid using the heap. But you do that only to have the paint engine create something expensive as a QPainterPath first chance it gets). You just rubberducked me into realizing that QPolygon shouldn't even inherit a QBasicVector. It should probably contain a QPlatformPolygon instead. Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <[email protected]> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
