André Pönitz (23 April 2020 10:52) > "vector" in this context is a misnomer. It does not "carry" something > from one place to another,
It is a container, in which values are carried from one piece of code to another. The same can, of course, be said of every container. However, that's all that mathematics was using it to mean, when first it introduced the term vector. Then, of course, it refined the meaning to mean something quite definite and no longer necessarily a carrier for a bunch of numbers. Jargon evolves. > it does not have a direction, it's (generally) not an element of a > vector space etc. These are quirks of mathematical jargon; and each discipline gets to evolve its jargon in its own quirky and eccentric way. Computer Scientists started out using arrays of numbers to represent mathematical vectors (as co-ordinates) but ended up using vector as a fancy word for an array, then evolving that meaning to whatever it has now become. > "list" is the better word already. That I would agree with; although I'm not sure how computer science jargon feels about it. > "array" as some ordered arrangment would be in principle ok, to Indeed. The etymology and origins of words is, however, much less important than the state of various folk's source code. We can have QList and QVector exist side-by-side without deprecating either, but I think some dislike the redundancy and want to get rid of at least one of those names for the type. However, QList is the name widely used in may of our APIs and thus, most likely, in many other folk's APIs. Since we have repeatedly urged folk to switch away from it, to QVector, it makes little sense to remove the name QVector. So how much harm does it really cause, to keep both names; and use whichever feels like the more natural description of the value one is returning ? Eddy. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development