Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Why Does Hash Apparently Reorder Its Internal Representation And  Other Associated Ponderings"
>     on Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:37:00 +0900, Hal Fulton <hal9000 / hypermetrics.com> writes:
> 
> |Personally I favor introducing an ordered hash of some form into Ruby.
> |Other people don't. Many want the original Hash kept as it is for speed
> |(though I am still unconvinced that merely keeping a sequence number
> |along with each key would impact speed dramatically).
> 
> I am open to introduce order into 1.9 Hash, as long as we can
> accomplish reasonable performance.  I haven't yet read the "A use case
> for an ordered hash" thread yet.  I am facing a huge mountain of mails
> after the vacation.

My use case (I started that thread) may not be compelling. Other people,
including Bil Kleb, have said it would be useful to them also.

Bil's example was related to NASA's CEV. So an ordered hash would help
put people back on the moon.  ;)


Hal