Pedro Cộte-Real wrote:
> On 8/22/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> It would be ordered and have arbitrary key values, but it would not,
>> in fact, be a Hash. That's the point that some folks have tried to
>> make about this.
> 
> 
> It is a Hash, since it provides it's interface and general performance
> characteristics. It just supplies the new guarantee of insertion
> ordering.

If you capitalize Hash (naming the Ruby class) that is arguably true.
But in the CS sense, a hash is not ordered.

> 
> A lot of people seem to want this so why not create a standard OHash?
> A nice syntax like the [1=>2] one would be great as well.
> 

I think I'll address a few more issues and then write this up as
an RCR.

If you don't see it in ten days, nag me.  ;)


Cheers,
Hal