range.rbs in rbs-3.4.1

- old
+ new
@@ -869,18 +869,19 @@
   #     (4..5).overlap?(2...4)     # => false
   #
   #     (1..2).overlap?(3..4)      # => false
   #     (1...3).overlap?(3..4)     # => false
   #
-  # This method assumes that there is no minimum value because Ruby lacks a
-  # standard method for determining minimum values. This assumption is invalid.
-  # For example, there is no value smaller than `-Float::INFINITY`, making
-  # `(...-Float::INFINITY)` an empty set. Consequently, `(...-Float::INFINITY)`
-  # has no elements in common with itself, yet
-  # `(...-Float::INFINITY).overlap?((...-Float::INFINITY))<tt> returns true due to
-  # this assumption. In general, if <tt>r = (...minimum); r.overlap?(r)` returns
-  # `true`, where `minimum` is a value that no value is smaller than. Such values
-  # include `-Float::INFINITY`, `[]`, `""`, and classes without subclasses.
+  # Note that the method wouldn't make any assumptions about the beginless range
+  # being actually empty, even if its upper bound is the minimum possible value of
+  # its type, so all this would return `true`:
+  #
+  #     (...-Float::INFINITY).overlap?(...-Float::INFINITY) # => true
+  #     (..."").overlap?(..."") # => true
+  #     (...[]).overlap?(...[]) # => true
+  #
+  # Even if those ranges are effectively empty (no number can be smaller than
+  # `-Float::INFINITY`), they are still considered overlapping with themselves.
   #
   # Related: Range#cover?.
   #
   def overlap?: (Range[untyped]) -> bool
 