Re: evaluating numbers

[Stefan Monnier]

> Those space considerations are no longer significant.  But there may
> be another problem: whether there is room in the representation of
> Lisp_Object for another type.

We do know the answer to this question, since XEmacs has had a separate
character type since even before it was renamed to XEmacs.
Basically: you make the room for it.


        Stefan


PS: For what it's worth, I think it's a mostly irrelevant design choice
(tho maybe it was different back in the days of 1MB machines): having
a separate character type would occasionally be convenient, but then
again it would also occasionally be less convenient.  I don't think
either choice is clearly superior in this context.
[ In the context of a statically typed language, OTOH, I think you do
  want to have a separate character type.  ]