Announcing E 0.8.4: The Birthday Release

[Chip Morningstar]

>Today is my birthday.  I am now the ultimate answer to the ultimate question 
>of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

The mind reels to consider what the question is to which you are the answer.

Anyway, happy birthday!

One comment:

>Unfortunately, it means that two table with different orders, but otherwise 
>the same, are not ==.
>
>	? define a := ["foo" => 3, "bar" => 4]
>	# value: [foo => 3, bar => 4]
>	
>	? define b := ["bar" => 4, "foo" => 3]
>	# value: [bar => 4, foo => 3]
>	
>	? a == b
>	# value: false

Is there some semantic trouble we would get into by adding an
'implementsSameMapping' method (feel free to substitute a better name)
to the table protocol? It strikes me that the circumstances under
which you want to compare two tables are sufficiently specialized that
a specialized method would not be overly burdensome from the user's
perspective.