Re: Merging bignum to master

[Pip Cet <pipcet@gmail.com>]

If you really think XFIXNUMFWD is a good name, don't you at least
agree that it should go with renaming other references to intfwds to
fixnumfwds? Right now we have:

static struct Lisp_Intfwd *
XFIXNUMFWD (union Lisp_Fwd *a)
{
  eassert (INTFWDP (a));
  return &a->u_intfwd;
}

I still think that's clearly a case of over-eager replacement (XINT ->
XFIXNUM). To have XFIXNUMFWD but INTFWDP seems obviously wrong to me.

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:01 PM Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> Pip Cet wrote:
> > Is it intentional that int-forwarded variables are still limited to
> > the fixnum range? In any case, we probably didn't want to rename
> > XINTFWD to XFIXNUMFWD...
>
> I think some C code does assume fixnum ranges for these variables, and would
> have to be inspected. Presumably we'd go to either intmax_t range or Emacs
> integers (fixnums or bignums), and that might need to be thought through in a
> case-by-case basis. In the meantime XFIXNUMFWD is probably a good name since
> that's effectively what the code does now.