Issue: BIT-ARRAY-FUNCTIONS (Version 5)

[Kim Barrett <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>]

Of the two proposals, I prefer ADD.  I agree that allowing differing
dimensions for the arguments to these functions is important.  Because
of the current requirement that they have equal dimensions I end up
almost never using them.

I think BIT-EQUAL might be a more consistent name, because of
STRING-EQUAL, but that's a minor quibble.  What should BIT-EQUALP do
with fill-pointers?  EQUAL and EQUALP are limited by the fill-pointer,
so probably this should be too.

Since I believe we added the COMPLEMENT function at the Hawaii meeting
(during the big TEST-NOT-IF-NOT debate), optimize (COMPLEMENT #'ZEROP) too.