Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: OK... :) question about hash and array literals"
>     on Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:54:52 +0900, Hal Fulton <hal9000 / hypermetrics.com> writes:
> 
> |Is there a method that does get called (I think not), or could
> |in theory such a thing be implemented?
> 
> Not planned, just because changing semantics of literals are too
> dangerous, as dangerous as macros for my eyes.
> 
> 							matz.
> 
> p.s.
> I'm thinking of preserving Hash order by not re-implement it by using
> Tree or something, but by saving key order information along with hash
> tables.


Yes, that is what I was thinking. That would also be the smallest impact
on the internals.

However, if order in literals is irrelevant, then hashes are not truly
ordered entities, are they?

See my other post about a [=>] notation... not an ideal solution perhaps,
but does preserve hash literals as they are.


Hal