RE: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>]

Drew Adams writes:
 > Stefan wrote:
 >> Drew wrote:
 >>> Stefan wrote:

 >>>> 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?

Give it up, Drew.  RMS has never been one to prefer "a foolish
consistency" (ie, adherence to abstract principles) where consistency
collides with his intuition or hacking convenience, and that same
reliance on intuition appeals to current maintainers as well:

 > > As language designers, we just take idea from here and there.

I think that is the last word on Elisp design principles.  Abstractly
I don't like it, myself, but surely you don't deny that it has proven
to be a workable strategy.

Nevertheless there is hope for those who prefer care-full design:
Guilemacs!

Steve