From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-36670-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 3923 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2015 08:30:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 36670
Received: (qmail 28245 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2015 08:30:40 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
X-AuditID: cbfec7f4-f79c56d0000012ee-7c-5608faac62ee
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:30:36 +0100
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: Properties of special hashes in zsh/parameter module
Message-id: <20150928093036.4d71f595@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <150926152921.ZM17972@torch.brasslantern.com>
References: <150926152921.ZM17972@torch.brasslantern.com>
Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker:
 H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xa7prfnGEGfx7LGVxsPkhkwOjx6qD
	H5gCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4MuY07GArOMtUcbc5sYGxg6mLkZNDQsBEouH/Z1YIW0ziwr31
	bF2MXBxCAksZJV7+bIdyZjBJPFrVywzhbGOUOP9sGVgLi4CqxJtDL9lAbDYBQ4mpm2Yzgtgi
	AuISZ9eeZwGxhQUcJT48mAtWwytgL/H57T1mEJtTwEri2vr7YGcICVhKbL/2ix3E5hfQl7j6
	9xPUefYSM6+cYYToFZT4Mfke2ExmAS2JzduaWCFseYnNa94yQ8xRl7hxdzf7BEahWUhaZiFp
	mYWkZQEj8ypG0dTS5ILipPRcQ73ixNzi0rx0veT83E2MkKD9soNx8TGrQ4wCHIxKPLwz1DnC
	hFgTy4orcw8xSnAwK4nw/v0BFOJNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsQozcGiJM47d9f7ECGB9MSS1OzU
	1ILUIpgsEwenVANjmNhyx7O2X7PEX5yYoRvjGC265IaHvCPP60nHCxgMLmofc8r8u/DKejee
	6JUfXJKCLURb2lPMr3k1B+tW3LE6PWcT4wLet1xK/wOmmUhZvX75zFj1p9rMsE3MZwykvi5j
	1n61IdPRziTuyXWbamcN5nyXTic200N7OdX3nwvaxJD1svIW0zslluKMREMt5qLiRABKVGBI
	VgIAAA==

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:29:21 -0700
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> Should we document this and make it a reliable condition for scripting?  Or
> do we prefer to keep open the option of implementing atop an unordered hash
> at some point in the future?

I can't really see why this would ever change.

pws