From: murphy <murphy@...>
Date: 2007-10-10T03:56:52+09:00
Subject: Re: Ordered Hashes in 1.9?

> I'd rather have leaner classes than a #methods method that returned
> methods in some well-defined order.  Are these pointers really
> motivated for the hash tables used for objects?  Or has the
> implementation of objects been changed in 1.9 to not use hash tables
> (that is, the hash tables used for the Hash class) for
> methods/members?
Well, Hashes and all symbol tables use st_table, which is highly
optimized and seems a perfect choice for both.

If we get a useful new built-in feature along with better general
performance, I take it!

matz said:
> It [...] has no memory impact (actually it has but we've reduced
> more memory in 1.9 than it costs) [...]
Is this about the new "entries_packed" table variant which stores small
hashes inline?

[murphy]