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@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@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@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution