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

[Paul Eggert]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > My objection is to 'bignump' and 'fixnump', which are no more
> > necessary as primitives than 'negativep' would be.
> We do have natnump, though, so bignump is not as outlandish as it
> might sound.

You're right that bignump is not outlandish. However, it's not at all necessary, 
and we should try to keep the core interpreter as simple and clean as possible. 
There is a longstanding tradition in mathematics to talk about "natural numbers" 
and so there is a genuine need in applications for natnump that comes outside of 
Emacs. bignump is nowhere near to natnump in importance. Emacs apps don't need 
bignump, and even our test cases' use of it is unnecessary.