On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Clifford Heath <clifford.heath / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/10/2011, at 1:16 PM, Kenta Murata wrote:
>> (2011.10.07 01:50 ), David Graham wrote:
>>> Is there a chance RBTree can be added to the standard library for Ruby 2.0?
>> I agree with you if the library name is changed.
>> The name of RBTree is too specific to its internal algorithm.
>> If we adopt RBTree, we must change the name of the library after
>> more better algorithms would be discovered.
>
> I agree. Hash is not named after the hashing algorithm that's being used,
> and Array is not named after its structure either.
>
> For sorted structures, I've previously used the name Sequence. I think
> this name would be suitable.
>
> I also wish that Ruby had this container type available as a standard.

I think Tree would be a fine name and closer to Hash.

James Edward Gray II