On Nov 7, 2007 10:39 PM, ara.t.howard [email protected] wrote:
it’s in order but once indeed needs to assume/know that for it to work.
cheers.
Okay, I’ll take note of that. I suggested that an Array was the only
object required to hold a set of other objects in order. No, that
methodology comes from the Enumerable mixin. Duh, I should be so
stupid. In other words, we should be aware that “successive” order is
something that holds for something that mixes in Enumerable no matter
what the implementation. The fact that #delete_if doesn’t exist in
the Enumerable module is what threw me off.
Also, I suppose we should pay attention to the fact that the action of
“deleting if” applies to objects that are not necessarily in order
(i.e. Hash). Hmm… I think this has been discussed before.
thx ara,
Todd