Issue: FIXNUM-NON-PORTABLE, v.5

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: 16 Mar 89 21:51 PST
    From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM

    This is my rewrite to capture the 'intent' of the amendment
    at the January X3J13. I say 'intent' because the relation
    between MOST-POSITIVE-FIXNUM (which is an inclusive bound)
    and ARRAY-DIMENSION-LIMIT (which is an exclusive bound) is not
    > but rather (>= MOST-POSITIVE-FIXNUM (1- ARRAY-DIMENSION-LIMIT)).

No, the amendment was (<= ARRAY-DIMENSION-LIMIT MOST-POSITIVE-FIXNUM),
and this was not a mistake nor an off-by-one error.  What you've
put in the proposal here is incorrect, I think.  I think it was
fully intended that not only every valid array index and every
array dimension, but also array-dimension-limit itself would be
a fixnum.  Someone might want to write an arithmetic iteration
whose upper bound was array-dimension-limit.