LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:01:35 +0200
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> (Frank Mittelbach's message of "Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:27:51 +0200")
Content-Type: text/plain
From: David Kastrup <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (24 lines)
Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> Am 22.06.18 um 09:16 schrieb Will Robertson:
>> On 22 Jun 2018, at 5:54 am, David Kastrup<[log in to unmask]>  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