Torso shortcut naming

[Orion Pobursky]

Currently we're naming the torso shortcut with the same suffix as the torso (e.g. 973p02 -> 76382p01). As I've come up on torsos that are used more than once I've been using suffixes from obsolete torsos (e.g. 973p01 -> 76382p01 and 76382p11) or a suffix used by a different numbered shortcut (e.g. 973p1r -> 76382p1r and 76382p0v since 973p0v uses 16360, the dual mould arm shortcut). 

Since I want to ensure that all 973pXX(X) torsos have at least one torso shortcut with the same suffix, when we run out of these overlaps I don't want to simply use the first available suffix.

Therefore, I proposed that if there is no appropriate and available suffix to take, a torso shortcut will use the pNNNN suffix using the first unused number in sequence.

[Philippe Hurbain]

Another possible scheme:
Name the first one 973pxxx -> 76382pxxx and/or 16360pxxx then if needed 76382pxxx-y and/or 16360pxxx-y with y in 0..9 and a..z

With your scheme torso assembly codes would block some torso codes...

[Rene Rechthaler]

what about 973p01 -> 973p01c01
that would then be both print and assembly
and you can count the c01 up if there are more arm/hand combinations

[Orion Pobursky]

what about 973p01 -> 973p01c01
that would then be both print and assembly
and you can count the c01 up if there are more arm/hand combinations

This has already been ruled out

Another possible scheme:
Name the first one 973pxxx -> 76382pxxx and/or 16360pxxx then if needed 76382pxxx-y and/or 16360pxxx-y with y in 0..9 and a..z

With your scheme torso assembly codes would block some torso codes...

Not a fan but don't have a specific reason why.