From: MiG <mig@1984.cz>
Date: 2004-09-17T23:39:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Redefining the { } behavior (Hash creation method)


>Not planned, just because changing semantics of literals are too
>dangerous, as dangerous as macros for my eyes.
>matz.

>p.s.
>I'm thinking of preserving Hash order by not re-implement it by using
>Tree or something, but by saving key order information along with hash
>tables.
>Hal Fulton <hal9000 hypermetrics.com>

I have the same problem - I want to create ordered Hash.
Overriding literals should be dangerous, but it CAN be overriden now (not
wholly).

The only difference is that {} don't call initialize of Hash. I think it
is more dangerous when there are two Hash behavior :-(
I don't want to override {} to produce MyFoo, but want {} to behave the
same way as Hash::[]

Problem 2: I than tried to override Hash::[] but don't know what to do
with it's argument. arg.inspect looks like Hash, but if I've tried
arg.each, there is no each method.


Jan Molic