RE: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup

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

> >> Indeed, it does not refer to the dynamically bound variable.
> > Why is that?  Will this be fixed, or is this the intended design?
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Intended design.

And the intention is?  The design is?  The reason is?

> > Even if things are currently a work in progress, is that the direction
> > you intend to head, or are you aiming elsewhere?
> 
> I have never aimed to do what CL does.  As language designers, we just
> take idea from here and there.
> 
> Elisp's design is different from CL's design partly for historical
> reasons but also for technical reasons: Elisp needs to be interpretable
> efficiently, for example.

OK, and how does the need for efficient interpretation enter into the
design decision that a function parameter whose name is the same as a
dynamically scoped variable is "not allowed" or does not refer to that
variable?