(EQL -0.0 +0.0) => NIL

[Kent M. Pitman <KMP @ MIT-MC>]

I definitely support the arguments presented in ALAN's note for making
(EQL -0.0 +0.0) return NIL. Any other interpretation would pretty much
destroy the useful properties of EQL's semantics.

I would definitely also want 
 (EQUAL '(DEFUN FOO () -0.0) '(DEFUN FOO () +0.0))
to return NIL.

Perhaps changing the wording on p56 to "numbers of the same type with the
same sign and magnitude" and omitting the reference to "=" would do; or
would this not be appropriately general to complexes?