in reply to Re: Why does 'keys' need a named hash?
in thread Why does ‘keys’ need a named hash?

Erm, no, I wouldn't expect that. A hash isn't just an even-sized list. It uses a hashing algorithm (hence the name "hash") to divide the data up into a series of arbitrarily-ordered buckets. The resulting data structure is almost completely unlike a list. Why would functions designed to work on such a structure also work on lists?

The only way I can squint hard enough at it to make keys work on a list would be if keys operated by flattening the hash into a list and then iterating over every other list element. And I can't for the life of me come up with a good reason for making keys work that way.

If there really are that many use cases for iterating every other element of a list, they would be much better served by adding a new keyword for that functionality than by bloating keys with an unnecessary and anti-performant hash-to-list conversion, particularly since the new keyword could be generalized to iterate over every Nth element of the list instead of only giving "even elements" and "odd elements" options.