From: Clifford Heath Date: 2011-10-08T06:30:49+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:40035] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #2348] RBTree Should be Added to the Standard Library On 08/10/2011, at 1:10 AM, James Gray wrote: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> On 07/10/2011, at 1:16 PM, Kenta Murata wrote: >>> (2011.10.07 01:50 ), David Graham wrote: >>>> Is there a chance RBTree can be added to the standard library for Ruby 2.0? >>> I agree with you if the library name is changed. >>> The name of RBTree is too specific to its internal algorithm. >>> If we adopt RBTree, we must change the name of the library after >>> more better algorithms would be discovered. >> >> I agree. Hash is not named after the hashing algorithm that's being used, >> and Array is not named after its structure either. >> >> For sorted structures, I've previously used the name Sequence. I think >> this name would be suitable. >> >> I also wish that Ruby had this container type available as a standard. > > I think Tree would be a fine name and closer to Hash. Is there any part of the API which allows a user to know it's a Tree? If so, why? If it's not externally visible in the API, it should not appear in the name. My 2c. Clifford Heath.