[LegionMammal978]

Thank you for the more detailed explanations. I was mainly wondering about the more philosophical concern of "unintended identical hashes" causing coupling between parts of the codebase with different purposes (which may want to evolve apart in the future), which you say is thankfully rare in practice.

For instance, say you have a function which generates a certain business report, and your boss wants you to fiddle with the formatting every quarter. Your colleague has a similar function to generate a report with the same data, but according to their own boss's quarterly formatting requirements. With content-based identity, it would seem like you have to be wary of your own and your colleague's reports ever aligning, lest they have the same hash and lose their distinct identities.

> If you really want to give two definitions different hashes even though they are functionally the same, you can introduce a minor change, like an unused binding.

Interesting. Is there at least any way to detect this condition before it occurs? (I.e., to know if you're trying to define a new function which happens to have the same hash as an existing one.)

[zawodnaya]

Yes, unison detects this condition when it occurs and tells you about it.