Benjohn and all,
I think our problem is that our terms are sloppy. I’d written
yesterday that I’d mistaken the functionality of Hash for
AssociativeArray, and then today I find this:
“Hashes (sometimes known as associative arrays or dictionaries) are
similar to arrays, in that they are indexed collectives of object
OK, so who wrote that? Dave and Andrew on page 37 of Programming
Ruby, First Edition.
See! We’re all confused. (Can I blame you Dave, or Andrew, for my
As I’ve proposed, we need to come up with a coherent taxa of
collections or lists. We need to have one name, or possibly a bunch
of names (as we are want in Ruby), but each name or bunch of names
should apply to and only apply to one of each of the different
containers that we are wanting to use.
I had an excessive taxa before which had some nonsense ones in it.
However, and assuming we don’t go for my generalized Container or List
or Collection, which I still think could have merit, with or without
the automated restructuring magic, I have weeded out the ones that
don’t make sense, so here then are the types that I think we want,
with little respect to the goodness of, or options for each name:
Keyed/HashedArray (with an optional sorter block, so as to indicate
that and provide for the basis of the order, nothing = insertion
order, block = sorted order)
I don’t like OrderedHash as a term.
And see a following post (tomorrow) I’m writing about theft.