On 8/24/06, thoran @ thoran. com <thoran / thoran.com> wrote:
> Benjohn and all,
>
> I think our problem is that our terms are sloppy.  I'd written
> yesterday that I'd mistaken the functionality of Hash for
> AssociativeArray, and then today I find this:
>
> "Hashes (sometimes known as associative arrays or dictionaries) are
> similar to arrays, in that they are indexed collectives of object
> references."
>
> OK, so who wrote that?  Dave and Andrew on page 37 of Programming
> Ruby, First Edition.
>
> See!  We're all confused.  (Can I blame you Dave, or Andrew, for my
> confusion?)

There's nothing wrong with that statement. Hashes are indexed
collections of object references. (the 2nd ed uses collections rather
than collectives in that sentence).  There's nothing to say that
indices need to be integers.

And while we're at it why hasn't anyone cried out for the need for an
"order preserving" array in ruby.
rick@bill:~/ruby-1.8.4$ irb
irb(main):001:0> a =[]
=> []
irb(main):002:0> a[2] = 3
=> 3
irb(main):003:0> a
=> [nil, nil, 3]

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/