From: Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality <ihatespam@...>
Date: 2006-08-22T01:50:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Why Does Hash Apparently Reorder Its Internal Representation And Other Associated Ponderings


"Martin DeMello" <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:f93a6bcc0608210510j438b2d58l1d485c707810f571@mail.gmail.com...
> On 8/21/06, Bil Kleb <Bil.Kleb@nasa.gov> wrote:
>> Martin DeMello wrote:
>> > On 8/21/06, Bil Kleb <Bil.Kleb@nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> > You can do this automatically (if you aren't already) by creating an
>> > object that holds a hash and an array, defines []=, each and delete to
>> > do the right thing, and delegates missing methods to the hash.
>>
>> Hmmm... good idea.  I've largely missed out on the
>> whole method_missing idiom.  Sounds like a good use.
>>
>> I'll try to look into it after I return from JPL next
>> week.  However, if you'd like to throw down an example,
>> I might be able to work it in now...
>
> Quick proof of concept:
>
> require 'enumerator'
>
> class OHash
>  include Enumerable
>
> ...
>
>  def method_missing(*args)
>    @h.send(*args)
>  end
> end

    Is there a reason why you don't simply inheret from Hash, or is this 
just another one of those There's More Than One Way To Do It scenarios?