On Fri Mar 21 02:33:42 2014, LeonT wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Ricardo Signes > <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org>wrote: > > > * "Paul Johnson" (via RT) <perlbug-followup@perl.org> > > [2014-03-09T10:26:43] > > > We promise unconditionally that deleting the most recent key will > > > not > > change > > > the iteration order, then we weaken that promise. But are we > > > really > > thinking > > > that the above code may one day be illegal? We had promised it > > > would > > always > > > be safe since 2000 (74fc8b5). > > > > I think that while most of bade7fb seems like great stuff, I agree > > with you > > here. This promise seems like one we want to consider truly binding. > > > > Anyone else? > > > > I'm somewhat worried about ties, but I guess it's not unreasonable to > force > them to support this too. How about the attached? Tony --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=121404Thread Next