On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:09:24PM +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > Il 27/03/2017 21:03, André Pönitz ha scritto: > >>> vector<point> is an ordered collection of points, but a QVector can > >>> contain anything; QVector<void*> can even contain unlike things, which > >>> is truly a tuple. So the problem here is the name QVector. The basic > >>> collection should be called QTuple or QArray, and QVector should mean > >>> QTuple<QPoint>. > >> As Marc already told you, the problem here is that there's already 20+ > >> years of experience in the C++ community with the name "vector" > >> indicating a very precise thing (which has nothing to do with geometry > >> or linear spaces). > > Since when is $SOME_COMMUNITY_WE_ARE_INTERESTED_IN is using $FEATURE > > since $ETERNITY a valid argument in this thread here? > > When people started doing claims about "how things should be named (and > why)" (which, yes, itself was an unnecessary thread derailment. But I > didn't start *that*.)
So that was after the argument of QList being used for a decade by Qt users was dismissed. Good. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
