PROPOSAL: Add `disjoint` method to `Data.IntSet`

[Tikhon Jelvis]

In practice, I hear people talking about "disjoint" sets all the time—it
comes up a lot more often than "overlapping" or "not overlapping". It might
have a negative in the name semantically, but it's used as an atomic word
in practice. (That is, when people say "disjoint" they're *thinking*
"disjoint" as opposed to "not joint" or "not overlapping".)

I'm in favor of naming functions with common usage in mind, and I think
"disjoint" is the word people use most often in this context.

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Henning Thielemann <
lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Víctor López Juan wrote:
>
> I'm thinking that `disjoint` is already a negation:
>> (dis- (not) + joint (united)). When composing with `not`, the user gets
>> a double negation `not (disjoint x y)`. There is a then a small mental
>> effort required to go from "not disjoint" to "overlapping".
>>
>> If we are going to have only one of the two properties, I would rather
>> have the positive one (`overlaps`) as primitive. Then `disjoint` would
>> be written "not (overlaps x y)", which reads quite easily.
>> (Or even "not (x `overlaps` y)").
>>
>
> I also dislike double negation and think that 'disjoint' is one. I'd
> prefer to see both 'overlap' and 'disjoint'.
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20171219/e6dfdabc/attachment-0001.html>