On Thursday, December 2, 2004, 2:30:00 PM, Austin wrote:

>> Will 2.0 come with a good ordered hash?

> The native hashing mechanism has been changed to preserve that order, I think.

That sounds a bit silly.  Wouldn't there be a performance overhead
associated with that?  Shouldn't that price be paid only by those
people who want that functionality, given that it can be easily
implemented in C or Ruby?

A C-based extension providing an InsertOrderHash, distributed with
Ruby, would be very handy.

Gavin