Re: evaluating numbers

[Po Lu]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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.  ]

IIRC, a tag bit was freed not too long ago by the removal of Lisp_Misc.
I don't think making a separate type for characters is worth it though.