References: <941aad2c-bc3d-ca7a-1757-470e7ed1d5b9@free.fr>
            <87bmc3ripu.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
            <FAFAAEF8-5739-4255-8DB3-EFE2418830E4@wspr.io>
            <6f6508f9-18da-5f27-6cc7-49852890928f@latex-project.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-ID:  <87zhznp53k.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date:         Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:01:35 +0200
Reply-To:     Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender:       Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From:         David Kastrup <dak@GNU.ORG>
Subject: Re: Package registration
To:           LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <6f6508f9-18da-5f27-6cc7-49852890928f@latex-project.org> (Frank
              Mittelbach's message of "Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:27:51 +0200")
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG> writes:

> Am 22.06.18 um 09:16 schrieb Will Robertson:
>> On 22 Jun 2018, at 5:54 am, David Kastrup<dak@gnu.org>  wrote:
>>> A stupid question that just occured to me: should we be discouraging
>>> registering prefixes that match another prefix' contribution to the
>>> overly simplistic hash function used in almost all TeX engines?
>> Would it be easier to update the hash function in the engines?:)
>> What would be the easiest way to test for clashes?
>
> No change I would think, but does it really matter in all honesty?

For stuff like LT@<number> you already sort 1000 numbers into something
like 200 hash buckets (don't remember the exact ratio: it was different
with roman numerals but not all that much better IIRC).  If somebody
then uses a similar indexing scheme for MR@<number>, he'll share exactly
the same hash buckets.

I thought I wrote some Elisp code evaluating this kind of thing ages ago
but cannot find it on my current disk.

-- 
David Kastrup