[swift-evolution] SetAlgebra naming update

[Dave Abrahams]

on Wed Mar 30 2016, Thorsten Seitz <tseitz42-AT-icloud.com> wrote:

> That's certainly an improvement, but why "formIntersection" instead of
> "intersect" (in analogy to "subtract")?

1. Consistency with union, which is more closely related than subtract.

2. "Intersect" actually has the wrong meaning as an imperative.  If you
   tell set A to intersect set B, and then ask whether A intersects B
   (!A.isDisjoint(with: B)), you would expect an answer of true.

>
> -Thorsten
>
> Am 30. März 2016 um 00:07 schrieb "T.J. Usiyan via swift-evolution" <swift-evolution at swift.org>:
>
>     I think that this is a great improvement and is consistent enough to accept. `form` will take some getting used to. 
>     TJ
>
>     On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>         Just an update:
>
>         The naming guidelines working group went back into negotiation over
>         the shape of SetAlgebra (and thus, Set and OptionSet) for
>         Swift 3, and reached a new consensus. We intend to bring forward a
>         proposal for the API shown here:
>
>         http://dabrahams.github.io/swift-naming/SetAlgebra-Math.html
>
>         and to update the guidelines to suggest using the "form" prefix to
>         create a verb phrase for a mutating method when the operation is
>         fundamentally non-mutating and described by a noun.
>
>         Regards,
>
>         --
>         Dave
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         swift-evolution mailing list
>         swift-evolution at swift.org
>         https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     swift-evolution mailing list
>     swift-evolution at swift.org
>     https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>

-- 
Dave