Re: Issue: DEFINE-OPTIMIZER

[Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>]

    Addendum ...
    
     If all you're saying is that people shouldn't write optimizers
     on functions they didn't write, I'm happy to stipulate that.
     I don't want this facility so that people can optimize 
     STRING-APPEND. I want it so that I can write a window system
     with functions that take hairy keyword arguments and I can
     still optimize those functions (which I wrote, and for which
     the system will have no conflicting operators anyway) efficiently.
    
I'm not sure I agree; the following is from a rather old version of
the UMass Amherst GBB sources:

;;; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
;;;
;;;  Compiler optimizers to change some sequence functions that use keyword
;;;  arguments to version that don't.  GBB calls these functions quite a bit
;;;  and runtime analysis of the keywords was taking 25% of the runtime.
;;;
;;;  05-27-86 File Created.  (GALLAGHER)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There follows what I think is Explorer-specific code to optimize FIND,
POSITION, and ASSOC.