Arrays: new and old keys, ii

[Brian Yennie]

To be fair, lots of languages use hash tables for arrays. And one  
could argue that associative arrays are not the data structure of  
choice for storing ordered data. I agree that some of this stuff would  
be useful, but if you really get down to it, "true arrays" often leave  
tasks like sorting to a higher level of abstraction.

Again, I agree it would be handy... but I also have to say that it's  
not "simple" to create a native array object which makes everyone  
happy with every possible use and still retains all of it's speed and  
ease of use.

I know this has been a winding thread, but maybe we could condense the  
whole thing into a straightforward feature request. If it's very  
popular who knows, maybe we'll see it in Rev 3.1 or later.

So what would it be? A "combine" command which sorts the keys? Or  
returns things in the order they were added? Or?

> -- Ok, this an important clue why I see and sense some missing  
> aspects/functionality etc in the new arrays.
> And I fear it may mean a much longer time before really, really true  
> Arrays are fully in Rev.
> I don't want or need clever hacks to do simple things that the  
> language should be doing for me.
> Yes, its good mental exercise figuring what's it all about, but why  
> waste that time.
> I rather work smart than hard, for what's an x-talk for?
> Besides, why is there not a full tutorial explaining you can or cant  
> do with the new arrays???