Hi, some replies below.. On 3 jul, 11:50, Christophe Porteneuve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, > > Sebastian Sastre a écrit : > > > the most basic things that you do with lists are: > > With *lists*, exactly. Not hashes / associative arrays. > > > Several others can be implemented using them like removing all or > > returning the last one. > > Hashes / associative arrays have no intrinsic order, so the "last" one > is not a valid notion. > Yes, you're right. I should put a protocol for associative lists (like dictionaries) but my general point remains.
> > criteria of waiting that a critical mass ask for it for economical > > reasons (even in a open community I consider this important). Or by > > It's not about economics, it's about feature bloat... Well, if computers came back to have 16K and networks 2 kbps we all will certainly justify a lot of optimizations. But if we are programing for the near future I think we should think big not small so using stinginess of features as a default criteria for essential features just does not make me feel comfortable (nor yesterday not todays!). > Not quite the > same thing. > About economics, you'll had to admit that indirectly it touches economics in a lot of ways (broadband, success in user experience, operative costs of developers, etc). So maybe is it was not though with economic in mind explicitly but I'm pretty sure it does intuitively. > -- > Christophe Porteneuve aka TDD > [EMAIL PROTECTED] cheers ! Sebastian PS: if the essence of Hash is to be an array (list or unordered collection) of associations between objects I wonder why that was not prioritized in it's naming time. For some reason (that I think is only relevant to evade to use it again), instead was prioritized in the name, the accidental anecdote which says that today's *associative list* are implemented using the association's hashes (that are essentially checksums) and crystallize that essence divergent idea by "baptizing" it that way. IMHO that mislead of priority at naming time is forcing you to explain and/or document that detail over and over because a divergent suggestion and wasting use of words that already exist to describe that essence. Confusivity by default. Strange. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
