James Coglan wrote:

> > 
> > Your code happened to work by chance.
> 
> 
> Granted. As I've said elsewhere, this is just my example of a
> significant change in 1.8.7. I accept that no iteration order was
> ever explicitly stated for 1.8, and a change like this is something
> of a grey area in terms of whether it would be considered a backward
> incompatibility.

No, it's not a gray area.  Anyone who has a basic understanding of
hash-tables doesn't even think about the iteration order.