Re: bignum branch

[Paul Eggert]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I see no reason yet to get rid of XFASTINT.  Certainly not because we
> need to come up with one more macro name.

The name is just the straw that broke the camel's back. We haven't needed 
XFASTINT for years, the distinction between XINT and XFASTINT is more hassle 
than it's worth, and maintaining the distinction with XFASTFIXNUM and 
XFASTINTEGER and XFASTBIGNUM would compound the hassle.

The main reason to keep XFASTINT was inertia. As long as we're redoing XFASTINT 
calls anyway we might as well change them to XINTEGER or XFIXNUM (whichever is 
applicable), and clean out the XFAST... cruft.