On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:25:10 +0900, Glenn Parker wrote: > However, the more I think about it, the more I see this as a typical > operation on existing hashes, not simply a constructor. So, I would > rather see alternate forms for merge and update: > > Hash#merge(keyArray, valueArray) > Hash#update(keyArray, valueArray) > > Then, to the original problem would be expressed as: > > h = Hash.new.merge(keyArray, valueArray) That's a good point. Given that, I don't think it's really necessary to make any alterations to the constructors. I suppose in the example above using merge! or update would be appropriate, since the original hash isn't needed. h = Hash.new.merge!(keys,values) In addition, it would be nice if keys and values need not be arrays - just Enumerables. Implementing this may be a bit tricky, however.