> then the numbers will be more accurate:
>
> #(6122 5368 26244 27043)

That's a pretty dramatic improvement in the hash dispersion.

On one hand, we were just trying to fix the discrepency with #=, not
actually improve the #hash.  But, since we're in here anyway....

It would be a disruption if someone has them in a HashedCollection,
but probably minor since they can rehash, after which they should
enjoy better performance.

I do keep some large MagmaDictionary's which rely on the standard
#hash, but don't allow enumeration (due to their size), and so can't
really be rehashed except by rebuiding them.  But, if I have any
Intervals in them, I can probably deal with it.

So my guess is this is probably a worthwhile improvement.  I'll go
along with whatever y'all decide, but if its Levente's, please don't
forget to reparent to the trunk version.  :)  Much appreciated!

Best,
  Chris