Chris,
If/when we implement this, the idea is to rehash the collection using:
    HashedCollection rehashAll
Will this adverse affect your MagmaDictionary's?  Or will those be handled
some other way?

-cbc

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:02 PM Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20181116/f5870132/attachment.html>