"trans. (T. Onoma)" <transami / runbox.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:200409201648.43342.transami / runbox.com...
> On Monday 20 September 2004 04:24 pm, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> 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".
>
> Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me: "some completely contingent
> order" != "special order"?  It's still order either way. Nonetheless, even
> though a Hash by definition has no order, I doubt anything in a computer
> system lacks for order ;)

Exactly.  That's why the term "order" does not make any sense unless a data 
structure has a recognizable order.  A hash does not have that - an array 
has it. And there is no transformation - neither for Hash#each, 
Hash#each_with_index or the Array counterparts.

>> > 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.
>
> Sorry, guess I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean the per class methods;
> rather the common Enumerable#each_with_index method, i.e. giving it a new
> name. But David seems to like #each_with_counter anyway, which is fine 
> with
> me.

+1

    robert