Sven Suska schrieb:
> And I am 100% in favour of a order-preserving hash in the Ruby core.
> 
> And actually, I would prefer the behavior of Hash to be *replaced*
> by the behavior of "HistoryHash".
> Enough people do want this feature,
> a history-preserving hash does not cost much more (in terms of memory 
> and execution time)
> and it is consistent with tho old hash behavior.
> So, for the sake of simplicity, no new class, let's just replace
> Hash by a "better" Hash.

Sven, regarding the "HistoryHash" part of your post:

In order to replace the standard Hash with a "better" Hash, there should 
be a clear agreement on its desired behaviour. I don't think this 
agreement has been achieved yet. What should be the result of the 
following code?

   hh = HistoryHash.new
   hh[:one] = 1
   hh[:two] = 2
   hh[:one] = 3
   hh.each do |k, v| p k end

Should it be

   :one
   :two

or

   :two
   :one

Why should it be the one or the other?

Regards,
Pit