RE: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > Excuse me for not following the thread and perhaps not understanding what
> > you say here.  Are you saying that if `lexical-binding' is non-nil then
> > a function parameter whose name is the same as a dynamically scoped
> > variable is "not allowed" or does not refer to that variable?
> 
> Indeed, it does not refer to the dynamically bound variable.

Why is that?  Will this be fixed, or is this the intended design?

> > That would be counter to how Common Lisp works, and I thought (and I hope)
> > that our aim was (is) to use the way Common Lisp marries lexical and
> > dynamic binding as our model.
> 
> Elisp is not Common-Lisp.

That's obvious.  No one will argue the contrary.

But is there a reason not to follow the CL design in general wrt the
cohabitation of lexical and dynamic binding?  Even if things are currently
a work in progress, is that the direction you intend to head, or are you
aiming elsewhere?

Is there a description somewhere of where the design is headed in this
regard?  Is there a spec or a proposal?  What are the intentions?

There was a lot of discussion behind the CL design.  What are the proposals
here and their supporting arguments?