This is a very interesting hack, though I don't really think it is a
good one to implement. Maybe as an extension (which would be really
cool, though I have a hard time seeing that working), but not as
default.

I believe that I've heard that one of the reasons why it's not sorted
any particular way is due to a performance increase in the randomness
of it. I can't verify that, as that's outside of my expertise, but I
don't wish to have Ruby any slower.

But, really, my biggest reasoning is that order doesn't matter to a
dictionary/hash. What matters, above all else, is that you have a
collection of keys that refer to their associated values. Sure, some
kind of ordering would be good for some occasions, but, honestly, I
don't need it often, if ever. When I need some kind of ordered set, I
use an Array. I ask myself: if I really need this ordered, am I really
working with a hash/dictionary, or am I working with an array?

Lastly, though I can't see using it (any time soon, at least), I do
understand that it has valid uses. I don't see Rick's example syntax
to be too far-fetched an alternative to simply using a hash literal
(which I don't use too often, anyways), as uncomfortable as it may be.
But, then again, it's an Array, isn't it? Hmm. But, really, I'm sure
you could figure something out that works well.

Just don't mess with my hash... ;D

M.T.