"trans. (T. Onoma)" <transami / runbox.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:200409201143.55639.transami / runbox.com...
> On Monday 20 September 2004 10:59 am, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> No. You *can* enumerate all elements (or all pairs) in a Hash.
>
> Well, there is a a subtle distinction that can be drawn: by "enumerating a
> hash", it undergoes a transformation and it isn't really a hash any more
> --order has imposed upon it, and hashes have no order. Hence David's sense 
> of
> a "magic" to_a.  Granted this is quite minor.

There is no transformation under the hood - neither technical nor 
conceptual: Hash#each just presents all key value pairs in some completely 
contingent order.  No special order "has imposed upon it".

> So, I agree with you. I just think the word 'index' is the wrong word, and
> source of much the "confusion". If it's really needed the word 
> 'enumerator'
> would be better.
>
>  each_with_enumerator{|a,e| ... }
>
> (Or perhaps just 'enum' for short)

IMHO not.  An enumerator is somthing that does the enumeration or helps with 
it.  #each_with_key is much better.

> And then each_with_index can be defined as has been suggested, per class. 
> For
> Array it would just be an alias to the above I suppose.

Probably.

    robert