From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2006-08-21T20:45:37+09:00
Subject: Re: Why Does Hash Apparently Reorder Its Internal Representation And Other Associated Ponderings

------=_Part_38315_15723811.1156160735724
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/21/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Why Does Hash Apparently Reorder Its Internal
> Representation And Other Associated Ponderings"
>     on Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:26:10 +0900, "Robert Dober" <
> robert.dober@gmail.com> writes:
>
> |I am just dreaming:
> |
> |ohhhhhh =3D OrderedHash.new { |k1,k2| tell_my_friend_what_order_is(k1, k=
2)
> }
> |
> |class MyOH < OrderedHash
> |       def key_order(k1, k2)  ### Here we could define Mixins for common
> key
> |orders
> |
> |And would asking for having two like the following be too much?
>
> I think it's not just "ordered" but "sorted".



Sorry if I was unclear - just dreaming U know.
My naming is bad, usually, often, always?

So I was just wondering if an OrderedHash would just define the order and
sorting would be done when necessary.
A SortedHash would keep track of the keys in a sorted way and sorted access
would be fast.
To express better what I had in mind was (updated with your naming),
expressed in a language I talk better than English, Ruby (1)

s =3D SortedHash ...
o =3D OrderdHash ...

s[:fourty_two] =3D 1764  # internal key order will be updated
o[:fourty_two] =3D 1764 # nothing to be done

s.each # no presorting needed
o.each or o.each_sorted or o.each_ordered # presorting needed

Robert

(1) That does not mean I cannot talk nonsense in Ruby though ;)

                                                        matz.
>
>


--=20
Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la b=EAtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.

- Albert Einstein

------=_Part_38315_15723811.1156160735724--