> I'm not even counting the argument from authority when >CS/Math were brought to the table without an invitation
I will keep bringing them to the table because, as a documentation guy following this and other similar discussions, it looks like you (plural) are willing to ignore the importance of naming things in the API because of technical problems with implementations in C++. ________________________________ From: Development <[email protected]> on behalf of Giuseppe D'Angelo <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 1:35:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Development] QList Il 27/03/2017 13:05, Philippe ha scritto: > QPolygon needs not be a QVector > QPolygon can be a QVector > QPolygon can be a QList ... which confirms the fallacy. > > ...but *today*, QPolygon is "implemented as a QVector" > Hence from the OO common dialect, QPolygon is-a QVector This subthread wasn't arguing with that (and you've already got an answer about why "implemented as a QVector" was a bad idea), but with the formal fallacies in the arguments exposed so far (four in four messages, and I'm not even counting the argument from authority when CS/Math were brought to the table without an invitation). Cheers, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | [email protected] | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (UK) Ltd., a KDAB Group company | Tel: UK +44-1625-809908 KDAB - Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
