Jeff King wrote:

I don't see any point in generating a sorted list and _then_ making an
auxiliary hashmap. My idea was that if you're using a sorted string-list
for lookup, then you can replace the whole thing with a hash (inserting
as you go, rather than sorting at the end).

What if I'm sorting a string list in preparation for emitting a sorted
list, and I *also* want to perform lookups in that same list?  In
other words:

[...]

I think Stefan pointed out a "case 4" in the other part of the thread:
ones where we really care not just about fast lookup, but actual
iteration order.

I had assumed that that was the whole point of this data structure.
Anything else that is using it for lookups should indeed use a hash
map instead, and I can take my share of blame for missing this kind of
thing in review.

[...]

I think I like the hashmap way, if the conversion isn't too painful.

If we don't have any callers that actually need the sort-and-lookup
thing, then yay, let's get rid of it.  But I don't actually think of
this as the hashmap way.  It's the get-rid-of-the-unneeded-feature
way.

In other words, *regardless* of what else we should do, we should
update any callers that want a hashmap to use a hashmap.  Please go
ahead, even if it doesn't let us simplify the string list API at all.

Thanks,
Jonathan