"Hal Fulton" <hal9000 / hypermetrics.com> wrote in message 
news:44EA0434.9040007 / hypermetrics.com...
> Rick DeNatale wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Sure. And if you didn't have Hash, you could implenent
> your own.
>
>> 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>.
>
> Yes. That's the thing which makes hashes in Ruby bearable.
> (How do they work in Java? I forgot.)

    I disagree.  I dislike the hash literal syntax and I can't believe that 
this is the only useful thing about hashes to some people.  If the lack of 
pretty syntax for hash literals is your problem then life has been pretty 
good to you...