Martin.Smith at qt.io
Mon Mar 27 13:47:36 CEST 2017
> 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 <development-bounces+martin.smith=qt.io at qt-project.org> on behalf of Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dangelo at kdab.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 1:35:20 PM
To: development at qt-project.org
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).
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dangelo at kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (UK) Ltd., a KDAB Group company | Tel: UK +44-1625-809908
KDAB - Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Development