From: Robert Klemme Date: 2011-04-13T16:08:18+09:00 Subject: Re: Hash Surprises with Fixnum, #hash, and #eql? On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: > On 04/12/11 19:09, Robert Klemme wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Clifford Heath >>  wrote: >> You happen to need the way that is not possible right now. > > On the contrary, I could live with it being either way. > The different interpreters do it both ways, or not at all. > That is the fact. That you've missed it makes me think you > *still* haven't actually run my code on the three interpreters > I mentioned. if that's true, it just underscores my suspicion > that you're engaging in defensive sophistry rather than rational > argument. I have run the code and I haven't missed the fact. Right, that wasn't obvious from my statement above. I qualify the behavior you are seeing as "undefined" (across all Ruby implementations) so it doesn't matter to me in which ways the test fails on different platforms. >>> People don't do it because it doesn't work, not because >>> it wouldn't be useful. >> >> How do you know? > > Because, as you say they deal with things in "the pragmatic way that > is so typical for Ruby". in other words, they're prepared to hack > around Ruby's hacks. I asked how you know that there is a significant number of cases where people stumble into this and what you basically say is "I know it because people pragmatically work around this and do not mention it". This could not be further away from anything like evidence or even a hint. > Forgive me for the crime of suggesting that we > should improve things instead. I'm all for improvements. But that's the exact point where we differ: in my opinion there is no overall improvement - as Charlie laid out nicely: there may be an improvement for a rare case but many other, more regular cases suffer. Regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/