=> false}
Now, i delete the foo function from the code (the foo
Hashes are unordered. If you need an ordered collection,
you’ll need
to use an array.
David
Oh my god, i didn’t know it, sorry. Is that a missing feature?
No, it’s just the way hashes behave. Note that there are ordered hash
implementations on the RAA:
http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/orderedhash/
You can also use a Struct to get roughly the same effect.
Regards,
Dan
This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential
or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is
strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy
all copies of the communication and any attachments.
Berger, Daniel wrote:
No, it’s just the way hashes behave. Note that there are ordered hash
implementations on the RAA:
http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/orderedhash/
You can also use a Struct to get roughly the same effect.
In case anyone tries to refer me to these, I’ll point out that
there are three reasons I like a hash.
- It indexes on an arbitrary value, not on an integer like
an array.
- It consists of explicit pairings of key and value.
- There is a convenient sybtax for literals:
{a=>b, c=>d, e=>f}
Note that there are no ordered hash solutions that preserve
the third criterion.
Most would require me to do something like:
oh = OrdHash.new(a,b, c,d, e,f)
or
oh = OrdHash.new([a,b], [c,d], [e,f])
or something just as bad.
Don’t underestimate the importance of a convenient notation!
What if arrays in Ruby were like arrays in C? In C, you can
specify an array literal (barely) when you declare it; that’s
about it.
Hal