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.