On 8/21/06, Bil Kleb <Bil.Kleb / nasa.gov> wrote:
> Phillip Hutchings wrote:
> > Using an ordered hash for one
> > person's benefit would kill the speed and jack up memory usage.
> >
> > [..] but replacing the Hash is not the way to go.
>
> I don't think anyone is suggesting replacing the
> existing Hash.  As I see it, the ordered hash would
> merely be an alternative to the standard hash.

Which, as has been shown can be provided without changes to the base
specification/implementation of Ruby.

The fly in the ointment, is that a few of the proponents of
OrderedHash seem to strongly require a literal syntax for the beast.
That's the one thing which seems to require divine intervention <G>.

Personally, I don't feel a burning need for it, and not knowing the
implementation cost, I'm not sure if the idea "pulls it's own weight."
But that's just a personal opinion.

Heck, the old Smalltalk equivalent of hash Dictionary, gave you the
keys as a Set, and the values as a Bag when you asked for them!

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/