Naming issues in implementing numbers

Alright, I've added about 1000 or so lines of code to the pika to
implement numbers and all (not finished yet, but it's quickly
approaching there), and I've come across a few issues...

First, I want to know if there are any objections to renaming files in
libscm-numbers like fixnum.* and double.* to cvt-fixnum.* and
cvt-double.* (with appropriate changes to the remaining files in both
libscm-numbers and libscm-numbers-reps).

The reason for this is two fold: first, I think it would help clear up
that the files simply perform a conversion between internal
representations representations and C representations -- at first I
thought the functions were meant to define constructors and accessors,
but as simple a change as this might make that a little more clear.

Second, in case the first wasn't strong enough, I would like to define
two new types, bignum and bigrat, and, following the pattern defined
in libscm/ and reps/, should name their source files bignum.* and
bignum-imp.* and bigrat.* and bigrat-imp.*, however, this conflicts if
I want bignum and bigrat conversion functions.

(I considered further recommending to rename the functions to
scm_cvt_number_to_fixnum and so forth, but I'm not sure that's
necessary.)

The second change I want to make is simply to rename fixcplxrat to
fixratcplx.  The second seems a more consistant naming pattern - any
complex type is defined as it's component types name with a 'cplx'
suffix.

Finally, between the r5rs defined scm_is_complex and
scm_make_rectangular functions, it impairs my choice of names that I
can use consistantly (to define a scm_make_<type> constructor and
scm_is_<type> predicate), but I just recalled Larceny uses rectnum so
I'll probably use that unless someone can recommend a better one.

Also, is using scmx_vtable_object_vtable "portable" for use in
libscm-numbers-reps?

-jivera