This is semantically equivalent to (ary1 & ary2).any?, but more efficient and makes the intent more obvious.
For example bundler checks whether the list of requested groups and the list of groups for a dependency has any overlap - it doesn't care what the overlap is, as long as it is non empty
In my personal projects we've found this to be a bottleneck when the arrays are large and where intersections are likely - !(ary1 & ary2).empty? keeps searching for all of the intersection even after we've found the first one, & creates extra garbage because of the intermediate array.
Subject changed from Add Array#overlaps? for whether the intersection of 2 arrays is non empty? to Add Array#overlap? for whether the intersection of 2 arrays is non empty?
To me the name of the method appears to make sense and I am slightly in
favour of the suggestion. I can not say how useful this method would be
in general, though, mostly because I think I needed to do something
such as (array1 & array2).any? perhaps only once or twice in a long
time in my own code; but even then I think this might be a useful
proposal and a name that makes sense (to me at the least).
To me the name of the method appears to make sense and I am slightly in
favour of the suggestion. I can not say how useful this method would be
in general, though, mostly because I think I needed to do something
such as (array1 & array2).any? perhaps only once or twice in a long
time in my own code; but even then I think this might be a useful
proposal and a name that makes sense (to me at the least).
Thanks. Matz suggested today that the name was not so clear to him. An alternative that springs to mind would be intersect?, but I am obviously open to any suggestions
I don't think overlap? is a good name. Besides that, Array#overlap? creates an internal hash table anyway, so that it wouldn't solve the bottleneck. In this case, creating a hash table explicitly would perform better.
Updated by 
Updated by 
Updated by 
Updated by 
Updated by 
Updated by