{{#reviewabout:Submissions:DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC)|}}
Overall suggestion (score): 0 - needs major revision
With respect to the described "Aim" in the pattern, I don't understand why a developer defines C1 as the logical negation of C2 instead of (probably more intuitive) using a disjointness axiom.
This could be a very interesting pattern/topic for discussion at WOP, for instance what is the intention of using disjointness instead of negation (are there benefits)?
However, the submitted pattern proposal so far is to weak to be accepted as a pattern. At least more explanation is necessary.Posted: 2009/9/10 Last modified: 2009/09/10