I am glad to see that ruby1.9.0 preserves hash insertion order.
It will finally allow me to generate human-readable yaml dumps
without ugly workarounds.

Some questions:

(1) Can I rely upon hash insertion order preservation as an approved
new feature of Ruby, without any risk that it may get lost again in
future releases ?

(2) ri1.9 says:
"The order in which you traverse a hash by either key or value
may seem arbitrary, and will generally not be in the insertion order."
Do I understand correctly that this text is outdated ?

If the answer is two times yes, then read on, please:

(3) Would you agree that the almost undocumented yaml/omap
class is obsolete ? Maybe, one should clearly marked it as such,
or even exclude it from 1.9 ??

(4) Once hashes are ordered, new use cases will be found, and
new methods will become useful. I would like to propose the following
new instance methods
Hash#insert_before( existing_key, other_hash )
Hash#insert_after( existing_key, other_hash )
and possibly also
Hash#insert_before( existing_key, key, value )
Hash#insert_after( existing_key, key, value )
to insert new items at well defined locations. My use case, as I
said before, is a hash which is dumped into human-readable yaml.

Regards, Joachim

SSB0aGluayB0aGF0IHlvdSBzaG91bGQgYXNrIG9uIHJ1YnktY2 9yZSBsaXN0LgoKLS0gClJhZG9z
s2F3IEJ1s2F0CgpodHRwOi8vcmFkYXJlay5qb2dnZXIucGwgLS Bt82ogYmxvZwo=

MjAwOC8zLzMxIFJhZG9zs2F3IEJ1s2F0IDxyYWRlay5idWxhdE BnbWFpbC5jb20+Ogo+IEkgdGhp
bmsgdGhhdCB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIGFzayBvbiBydWJ5LWNvcmUgbG lzdC4KeWVzIGJ1dCB3aXRoIGNy
b3NzIHBvc3RpbmcgcGxlYXNlIEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IHRoaX Mgb2YgY29tbW9uCmludGVyZXN0
IG9uIHRoaXMgbGlzdCBnaXZlbiBpdHMgaGlzdG9yeS4KClJvYm VydAo+Cj4gIC0tCj4gIFJhZG9z
s2F3IEJ1s2F0Cj4KPiAgaHR0cDovL3JhZGFyZWsuam9nZ2VyLn BsIC0gbfNqIGJsb2cKPgoKCgot
LSAKaHR0cDovL3J1Ynktc21hbGx0YWxrLmJsb2dzcG90LmNvbS 8KCi0tLQpXaGVyZW9mIG9uZSBj
YW5ub3Qgc3BlYWssIHRoZXJlb2Ygb25lIG11c3QgYmUgc2lsZW 50LgpMdWR3aWcgV2l0dGdlbnN0
ZWluCg==

Hi,

At Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:55:12 +0900,
Joachim (M=FCnchen) wrote in [ruby-talk:296442]:
> (4) Once hashes are ordered, new use cases will be found, and
> new methods will become useful. I would like to propose the following
> new instance methods
> Hash#insert_before( existing_key, other_hash )
> Hash#insert_after( existing_key, other_hash )
> and possibly also
> Hash#insert_before( existing_key, key, value )
> Hash#insert_after( existing_key, key, value )
> to insert new items at well defined locations. My use case, as I
> said before, is a hash which is dumped into human-readable yaml.

What do you expect on conflicts?

--=20
Nobu Nakada

On 2 Apr., 03:39, Nobuyoshi Nakada <n...@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:55:12 +0900,
> Joachim (München) wrote in [ruby-talk:296442]:
>
> > (4) Once hashes are ordered, new use cases will be found, and
> > new methods will become useful. I would like to propose the following
> > new instance methods
> > Hash#insert_before( existing_key, other_hash )
> > Hash#insert_after( existing_key, other_hash )
> > and possibly also
> > Hash#insert_before( existing_key, key, value )
> > Hash#insert_after( existing_key, key, value )
> > to insert new items at well defined locations. My use case, as I
> > said before, is a hash which is dumped into human-readable yaml.
>
> What do you expect on conflicts?
>
> --
> Nobu Nakada

Sorry Nobu, I saw your question only today.

I see two possible conflicts:
- existing _key does not exist
- key already exists
Right?

I would raise an exception in both cases.

Rationale:
One could imagine several other ways to resolve conflicts.
I do not think one of them will be widely accepted as the obvious
right thing to do.
Therefore not attempting to reconcile conflicts will cause the least
surprise.

Regards, Joachim