bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums

[Drew Adams]

> >   Some functions in Emacs accept only fixnums.  Also, while fixnums can
> >   always be compared for numeric equality with 'eq', bignums require
> >   more-heavyweight equality predicates like 'eql'."
> >
> > That's really the _last_ thing we should tell users, not the first.
> >
> > And even if we tell them something like that we should NOT emphasize
> > using `eq' ("bignums _require_...").  We should NOT give users the
> > impression that they should want to avoid the "more-heavyweight"
> > comparison function `eql'.
> >
> > We should instead tell users, right away, that they can (and typically
> > should) use `eql' for comparing any integers, regardless of whether they
> > happen, on this or that platform/machine, to be fixnums or bignums.
> >
> > I'm really surprised this doc got inserted as it is.
> >
> > Using `eq' is only an optimisation; it's platform/machine-specific; and
> > it makes users worry about whether the numbers being compared are both
> > fixnums.  (Sure, they can always test first with `fixnump' or `bignump',
> > but still...)
> >
> > And I don't see where the doc tells you how the Lisp reader treats an
> > integer numeral - when it gives you a fixnum and when it gives you a
> > bignum.  Shouldn't it tell you that you get a fixnum whenever the value
> > is within the fixnum range (if that's in fact the case)?  I mean, if
> > you're going to be comparing against a literal value, and the doc slants
> > you toward using `eq' as it does, you'll at least want to know whether
> > some numeral ends up as a fixnum or a bignum.  (Sure, you can always
> > test it...)
> 
> There seems to be a contradiction here: where we do describe the
> difference between fixnums and bignums, you argue that we shouldn't,
> but then you pick up a place where we don't distinguish between them,
> and you argue that we should...

Maybe read again what I wrote.

I didn't say we should not describe the
difference between the two.  Not at all.