"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