> Hmmm...  Reading it again, I still don't see how you can parse
> "adjacency in any of the three dimensions" to mean what the code
> is implementing.  Certainly, the code implements:

Because you're thinking of `Are two planes colliding?', whereas I'm
thinking of `Is my plane colliding with anything?'  They're two
different ways of visualizing the problem.

BUT THAT'S *NOT* THE POINT...

The point is that your new wording is equally confusing -- perhaps to
a different set of people -- as the original wording, and is thus not
really an improvement.