Hal Fulton wrote:
> Isak wrote:
>>
>> I don't think 'ordered' is a good name for something sorted by 
>> _insertion order_.
> 
> The fact that something can be "sorted" at all is only because it
> has an order, i.e., is sequential.
> 
> In fact, I would say an "ordered hash" would be subject to being
> sorted just as an array is. (We can sort an array because it has
> an order -- first element, second element, and so on. We can "sort"
> a regular hash, but we get an array back.)

You're right. Ordered merely means that elements have a position, I had 
it confused with 'sorted'.


>> I am probably 'tainted' by my exposure to the Java API, but just like 
>> I expect an ordered tree to be sorted by value, I'd expect an ordered 
>> map to be sorted by key.
>>
>> Insertion order maps are very useful too, and I'd love to see both 
>> added to the Ruby stdlib. I(o?)Hash and OHash? Let's keep Hash as lean 
>> and mean as possible.
> 
> That seems reasonable to me.
> 
> I once proposed the name "Map" for such a class -- there was some reason
> this wasn't considered good, but I can't recall why.

Yup, associated arrays are maps, not hashes.

After reading the nutter's on google groups (hate the broken 
nntp<->mailing list concept), I realize that calling them hashes isn't 
appropriate. Once you change their caracteristics they aren't really 
hashes any more.

SortedMap (or TreeMap) and (Insertion)OrderedMap (or perhaps 
LinkedHashMap; doubly linked list + hash) are probably better names..?


Isak


> 
> 
> Hal
> 
>