Issue: DEFINE-OPTIMIZER (Version 2)

[Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>]

I oppose this proposal. First, optimization is rarely something that
can be done portably. Using a name like define-optimizer gives the
impression that something will be done more optimally, and maybe it
won't.

Second, it appears that this functionality is isomorphic to macros,
except possibly macros that are only in effect during compilation.

Third, it seems to solve a problem that is addressed by all the various
abstraction mechanisms around already.

Fourth, it is part of a trend I will call ``featherbedding'', which I
will use in my messages to refer to adding comfortable features to
Common Lisp that are redundant or not strictly necessary.

			-rpg-