On 8/24/06, Sven Suska <software617rf / suska.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

For the record, I am 100% against this. Even if the semantics of
insertion order preservation could be defined to everyone's
satisfaction, it most assuredly does have an extra cost, and forcing
people who just want a normal hash to pay that cost is infeasible.

martin