There are couple of locations where this could be specified, i.e. a couple of things that are considered "The Ruby Language Specification":
The ISO spec doesn't say anything about Hash ordering: it was written in such a way that all existing Ruby implementations are automatically compliant with it, without having to change, i.e. it was written to be descriptive of current Ruby implementations, not prescriptive. At the time the spec was written, those implementations included MRI, YARV, Rubinius, JRuby, IronRuby, MagLev, MacRuby, XRuby, Ruby.NET, Cardinal, tinyrb, RubyGoLightly, SmallRuby, BlueRuby, and others. Of particular interest are MRI (which only implements 1.8) and YARV (which only implements 1.9 (at the time)), which means that the spec can only specify behavior which is common to 1.8 and 1.9, which Hash ordering is not.
The RubySpec project was abandoned by its developers out of frustration that the ruby-core developers and YARV developers never recognized it. It does, however, (implicitly) specify that Hash literals are ordered left-to-right:
new_hash(1 => 2, 4 => 8, 2 => 4).keys.should == [1, 4, 2]
That's the spec for Hash#keys, however, the other specs test that Hash#values has the same order as Hash#keys, Hash#each_value and Hash#each_key has the same order as those, and Hash#each_pair and Hash#each have the same order as well.
I couldn't find anything in the YARV testsuite that specifies that ordering is preserved. In fact, I couldn't find anything at all about ordering in that testsuite, quite the opposite: the tests go to great length to avoid depending on ordering!
The Flanagan/matz book kinda-sorta implicitly specifies Hash literal ordering in section 9.5.3.6 Hash iterators. First, it uses much the same formulation as the docs:
In Ruby 1.9, however, hash elements are iterated in their insertion order, […]
But then it goes on:
[…], and that is the order shown in the following examples:
And in those examples, it actually uses a literal:
h = { :a=>1, :b=>2, :c=>3 }
# The each() iterator iterates [key,value] pairs
h.each {|pair| print pair } # Prints "[:a, 1][:b, 2][:c, 3]"
# It also works with two block arguments
h.each do |key, value|
print "#{key}:#{value} " # Prints "a:1 b:2 c:3"
end
# Iterate over keys or values or both
h.each_key {|k| print k } # Prints "abc"
h.each_value {|v| print v } # Prints "123"
h.each_pair {|k,v| print k,v } # Prints "a1b2c3". Like each
In his comment, @mu is too short mentioned that
h = { a: 1, b: 2 } is the same as h = { }; h[:a] = 1; h[:b] = 2
and in another comment that
nothing else would make any sense
Unfortunately, that is not true:
module HashASETWithLogging
def []=(key, value)
puts "[]= was called with [#{key.inspect}] = #{value.inspect}"
super
end
end
class Hash
prepend HashASETWithLogging
end
h = { a: 1, b: 2 }
# prints nothing
h = { }; h[:a] = 1; h[:b] = 2
# []= was called with [:a] = 1
# []= was called with [:b] = 2
So, depending on how you interpret that line from the book and depending on how "specification-ish" you judge that book, yes, ordering of literals is guaranteed.
