Hal Fulton schrieb:

>>
>>
>> The performance wouldn't increase for insertion, iteration and
>> lookup, but do for direct deleting (except for st_delete_safe).
>> And the memory usage increases 2 pointers for each hash
>> entries.
>>
>
> In my opinion, it would be worth it.
>
> I am curious: How often do people use "large" hashes? Nearly all
> of mine are under 50 keys, I think.

I don't use ruby that often these days but mine
were and are often much larger then this

>
> It becomes more of an issue if the hash has 1000000 keys, of
> course.

I am strongly against an insertion-ordered Hash Class (as the
default implementation) . Feature overloading a fundamental data
structure like Hash, instead of defining a separate class like
"InsOrderedHash", to maintain a shallow tree of bases classes,
violates my sense of aesthetics - I would probably seriously consider
changing to the Python-camp:-(

/Christoph