diff -r 64ed56fbc5e7 Objects/dictobject.c
--- a/Objects/dictobject.c	Sat Jun 25 03:06:58 2016 +0000
+++ b/Objects/dictobject.c	Sat Jun 25 17:13:33 2016 +0530
@@ -88,20 +88,17 @@
 /*
 Major subtleties ahead:  Most hash schemes depend on having a "good" hash
 function, in the sense of simulating randomness.  Python doesn't:  its most
-important hash functions (for strings and ints) are very regular in common
+important hash functions (for ints) are very regular in common
 cases:
 
-  >>> map(hash, (0, 1, 2, 3))
+  >>>[hash(i) for i in range(4)]
   [0, 1, 2, 3]
-  >>> map(hash, ("namea", "nameb", "namec", "named"))
-  [-1658398457, -1658398460, -1658398459, -1658398462]
-  >>>
 
 This isn't necessarily bad!  To the contrary, in a table of size 2**i, taking
 the low-order i bits as the initial table index is extremely fast, and there
-are no collisions at all for dicts indexed by a contiguous range of ints.
-The same is approximately true when keys are "consecutive" strings.  So this
-gives better-than-random behavior in common cases, and that's very desirable.
+are no collisions at all for dicts indexed by a contiguous range of ints. So
+this gives better-than-random behavior in common cases, and that's very
+desirable.
 
 OTOH, when collisions occur, the tendency to fill contiguous slices of the
 hash table makes a good collision resolution strategy crucial.  Taking only