What about adding a new switch to go with -m, to specify the name of the hashing algorithm to be used? Or maybe just a switch to specify the fnv1a algorithm without supporting any other if they are not so great.
I am sure that Khaled could do this if it genuinely made sense, however:
1. Unless the user has a way of knowing his data in advance and also a way of determining which hash algorithm gave the best spread, how would they have any way to determine which flag to use? So then you would have to provide an identifier for each hashing algorithm specifically so a user could pre-analyse their data to determine the best one, and then Khaled would no longer have any freedom to innovate to improve hash table performance.
2. The performance gains are, it seems, fairly marginal - at least when compared to using a binary-search algorithm instead of iterating down the entire linked-list of a slot. So if we are going to look for performance (and functional) improvements, my vote would be to spend the energy on that rather than flags to allow a user to choose an alternative hashing algorithm.
P.S. If we are looking for ways to improve hash table performance (other than binary search), then a couple of ideas off the top of my head...:
a. If not already in the code, other performance gains could be made by caching the results of the last $hget(table,n) or $hfind(table,needle,n) (and trashing the cache if /hadd is used) so that when you do a subsequent call for the same search but for a later position n+m, you start from where you left off rather than from the beginning of the table.(Though this would have the oddity that using an incrementing loop would be far faster than a decrementing loop.
b. Another possibility for massive performance improvements which literally just occurred to me would be to get mIRC to use the 3d graphic chip parallel processing that are in most modern PCs to do non-hashed lookups. (Though probably way to much programming effort to be worthwhile.)