Re: Issue: DEFINE-OPTIMIZER

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

    Consider also an implementation that transforms (1+ x) to the canonical
    form (+ x 1), and a user "optimizer" that transforms (+ x 1) to 
    (1+ x).
    
This problem goes away if we're willing to accept the restriction that
user-defined optimzers are a strict prepass to compiler optimzers.
This seems reasonable to me; it still lets me do almost anything that
I can think about portably.  Of course it may lose if I transform the
code to make superior implementation optimization impossible, but that
can be covered by a warning.