On 08/10/2011, at 1:10 AM, James Gray wrote:
> 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.

Is there any part of the API which allows a user to know it's a Tree?
If so, why?

If it's not externally visible in the API, it should not appear in the name.

My 2c.