Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup

[Dmitri Paduchikh]

Barry OReilly wrote:

>>> The warning seems to say opposite:

>> Yup. The way I thought about it when I wrote it is that `load-path'
>> is a dynamically-scoped var, not a lexical var. But indeed, here it
>> will (locally) be a lexical var, so the wording is rather poor.
>>
>> Suggestions for better wording?

> How about:

>   Warning: Lexically bound argument %s is already defined as dynamically
> bound

IMO, this does not explain what happens actually. I would rather prefer
such variant:

Warning: Lexically bound argument shadows dynamic variable %s

-- 
With best regards
Dmitri Paduchikh