From: Phrogz <phrogz@...>
Date: 2007-12-19T10:05:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Hash#collate

On Dec 18, 5:16 pm, Joel VanderWerf <vj...@path.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Phrogz wrote:
> >   #  { :a=>1, :b=>2 }.collate :a=>3, :b=>4, :c=>5
> >   #  #=> { :a=>[1,3], :b=>[2,4], :c=>[5] }
>
> Do these two give the same result? Does it matter?
>
> { :a=>1, :b=>2 }.collate :a=>3, :b=>4, :c=>5
> { :a=>1, :b=>2, :c=>5 }.collate :a=>3, :b=>4

They don't. In my particular use case today, I only used the result as
a set, so a proper Set might have been more appropriate. But I don't
know; I think that preserving the order is probably useful, at least
when not using the #uniq option. (I'm thinking perhaps of a case where
you're specifying a series of fallback results for a variety of
options.)

Totally up for grabs, though, if there's a faster, more elegant
solution that doesn't use that.