From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2006-08-22T08:09:22+09:00
Subject: Re: A use case for an ordered hash

On 8/21/06, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which, as has been shown can be provided without changes to the base
> specification/implementation of Ruby.

Such implementations *are* a bit slower and less efficient since
they're pure Ruby.

> The fly in the ointment, is that a few of the proponents of
> OrderedHash seem to strongly require a literal syntax for the beast.
> That's the one thing which seems to require divine intervention <G>.

Not require, but *desire*.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin@zieglers.ca