Not at all. Most programs only use one or a few hash functions, so grouping each family into a separate crate reduces compliation time for the majority of user

Not at all. Most programs only use one or a few hash functions, so grouping each family into a separate crate reduces compliation time for the majority of users. Could also help when auditing the removal of vulnerable hash functions. As for ripgrep, the organization is quite sensible: 1. one crate to define an interface for regex matchers 2. one crate to implement the native matcher 3. one crate to implement the PCRE2 matcher 4. one crate to define a safe interface to the underlying PCRE2 library Depending on the application, any one of 1+2+3+4, 1+2, 1+3+4, or 4 alone could be useful.