Re: bignum branch

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

Paul> 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.

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

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

While I tend to agree that it makes sense to remove XFASTINT, I think I
would rather it be a separate patch from the bignum branch.  So, I used
the name Andy suggested.

Tom