Simon Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... In both cases, I would expect to get '00', since the hash > should be empty. Is this a bug in the code, or is an OrderedHash supposed > to work this way (in which case a note to this effect in the > documentation might be a good idea)?
Mixing keyed and indexed access in OrderedHash isn't working. So unless the implementation is fixed a note WRT that is really in order. We could also throw an exeception in delete_keyed for now. > Simon leo
