[Development] Some Qt3D feedback

[Marc Mutz]

On Wednesday 17 June 2015 20:32:48 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> It seems that most people, but not everyone, in the discussion see the 
> inconsistency and there are good reasons that it is not a good thing.

I *do* see the inconsistency. I'm just not convinced that it *matters*.

Paraphrasing Sharekspeare:
   What's in a name?
   that which we call a Qt3D::QTransform
   By any other name would work as well.

IMHO, the fact that our implicitly-shared value types have an even chance of 
having or not having a move constructor[1] is something much more worrisome 
than the imminently bike-shaddable question of Qt3DTransform vs. 
Qt3D::QTransfom vs. Qt3D::Transform.

People *will* deal with namespaces just fine - they've been doing so since the 
first C++ standard came out, incl. the transition from non-std:: to std::names 
- but they *cannot* tolarate the 10x (H. Hinnant) slowdown when resizing a 
vector<QFoo>, just because there's no QFoo move ctor or it's not marked as 
noexcept.

[1] those that use a naked d-pointer have (inline) move ctors, those that use 
a smart d-pointer would have to define it out-of-line, thus the C++98/11 BC 
requirement makes it impossible to add them atm.

Thanks,
Marc

-- 
Marc Mutz <marc.mutz at kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts