So hashes aren't ordered because the following doesn't work?

$h{foo} = 'a';
$h{bar} = 'b';
$h{baz} = 'c';

is(join(' ', values(%h)), "a b c");
[download]

I guess arrays aren't ordered either, then.

$a[2] = 'a';
$a[0] = 'b';
$a[1] = 'c';

is("@a", "a b c");
[download]

Order has to be imposed externally on the data in the case of arrays too. It's just there's a convenient way of doing that when the keyspace isn't sparse (namely, the range operator).

You're trying too hard. You're now saying that there must be exactly one kind of ordering that constitutes ordering, and nothing else can be considered ordered. Or that every ordering must be implemented for a thing to be considered ordered. I'm not sure which you're contending; they're both pretty stupid notions, which is why it surprises me to see you pushing it as a serious argument.

Order has to be imposed externally on the data in the case of arrays too.
No, order is intrinsic to arrays. Not every possible order, but the one that is intrinsic. Any other ordering would have to be imposed. Arrays have one intrinsic ordering. Hashes have zero intrinsic orderings.

---

Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.

I'm not sure which you're contending

I'm saying there's no difference between hash and arrays expect in the order they choose to return their values. A hash could return its values in the same order as an array. And if it did, people would still ask how to sort hashes.

With which of these premises do you disagree?

Arrays have one intrinsic ordering. Hashes have zero intrinsic orderings.

So? Even if hashes had an intrinsic ordering, the same problems faced today would still exist. There's more to it than that, or the answer to the posts we see isn't "hashes aren't ordered".