Re: Making 'eq' == 'eql' in bignum branch

[Paul Eggert]

Pip Cet wrote:
> I think too many places might still assume that most-positive-fixnum
> is precisely either one of its current values (OTOH, I'm running with
> most-positive-fixnum = 0x7fffffff and things appear to work).

Older Emacs used different values, and we survived OK when we changed them. 
Plus, xemacs's values differ from both old and current Emacs, and people port 
scripts among these implementations. So I think we'd be all right if we changed 
these values again.

> I think references to most-positive-fixnum (and implicit ones, like
> using Frandom without an argument) should be eliminated. Fixnum range
> is now an implementation detail.

I tend to agree. Also, we should remove the fixnump and bignump functions; these 
functions certainly don't need to be in C code and I don't see why they even 
need to be present at all. We shouldn't be giving users the impression that the 
distinction between fixnums and bignums is important.