[Development] Some Qt3D feedback

[Daniel Teske]

> Curiously, you didn't list any pro-namespace arguments. 

Actually:
>> We couldn’t make things work in a source compatible way.

>> * connect statements are hard with namespaces. 

>> * metatype registration is problematic with namespaced types

>> * One of our coding guidelines is that you write code once, but read it
>> many times. Code written should be as self explaining as possible. Having
>> generic class names inside an implicit namespace makes this difficult, as
>> information is not fully local anymore 
 
>> * class name prefixing is a widely used and understood scheme by our
>> users.

You think you have countered all of them. But to claim that there were no pro-
namespace arguments is just wrong. 


> But after all I read from the proponents of name prefixing so far, we rather
> need to send the whole QtC bunch to the asylum because they've clearly
> backed themselves into a corner and can't possibly understand their code
> anymore. :)

As a Qt Creator developer, I wouldn't recommend making the Qt API inconsistent 
wiht itself by introducing namespaces into a module now. 

daniel