From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tino Calancha Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 16:43:02 +0900 Message-ID: <8760msmdq1.fsf@gmail.com> References: <8737hwllow.fsf@gmail.com> <83zik4fdug.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1481355915 31299 195.159.176.226 (10 Dec 2016 07:45:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 07:45:15 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 25154@debbugs.gnu.org, Alex , tino.calancha@gmail.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 10 08:45:11 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cFcLG-0007RE-N4 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 08:45:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50651 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cFcLK-0006rQ-Ko for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:45:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55691) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cFcKF-0003db-Qw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:44:10 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cFcKA-0005wU-Vd for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:44:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49347) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cFcKA-0005wQ-S3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:44:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cFcKA-0001M8-Fy for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:44:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Tino Calancha Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 07:44:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25154 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 25154-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25154.14813557955121 (code B ref 25154); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 07:44:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25154) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Dec 2016 07:43:15 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36510 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cFcJP-0001KW-ED for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:43:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:35186) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cFcJO-0001KJ-9Y for 25154@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:43:14 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pf0-f193.google.com with SMTP id i88so2181163pfk.2 for <25154@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 23:43:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=oiHIDHauGm4XSV5hq9jKjIUQ2IPAOBk6KZU0p34icVM=; b=iO59ZefZQSD/DjQVYa8Yr9q7E7wunPki3E46VC4f9HrCuBCSQ0Rp+WaDofKkZFFrtP 2DmsB+6SzC/SPVVp6eG/h7ncw/RVaUEyzIpSGDGGLqIRD+0nR0bXU3ECWvXoB30kHZKN UYi4F4gA0vn8Gpbtvjnj+aCIGlZ4kZqEYA9FVcsv73TXxaxL/5ayK1b7t5JuARmqw1V2 6+R4vTIRNUNLu1BFCqLlZm/L5J5f1SOq/6NDw9YKPrC6KXh+hI6q9+wE/+54fq+lJ1p1 BBYjLFNODqnj0gm3FBZLXxMUcx5nGnHtmzSVKuOBzoZCHSJkwH7KCyZcaP1moW4XDAn4 ygeQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=oiHIDHauGm4XSV5hq9jKjIUQ2IPAOBk6KZU0p34icVM=; b=U704+lVQcroluT9d/Qld6so4PKoSDFLQNectbUTZeJCbi+iJwl/1YQ9z38JNMvLYUq kWzaQyTSIxDFRRg0pDJlxlroRfp0niarDS/pe915NvPBZ9z/HugDUJ1CogDzt/uBs617 e08dukfBcEDj/cUsNcZDX77bpWUXMNNTYAJlhJE15Uxr4WYdp+DnLD5ZYrlQ7a3IXrPg gQFA1gvhqw83rEEilpYKYbQ4K14nfqdBfkBg3vOI1XlS4qqF6MlBCDGM9jQ66yhwwMBh DKZlmNAbdUF2/sFdT2MAn9HGb+hrWMe9qn8XxNpKABTGKmaFScwO5GIoxoYAIdLvD75w 4q+g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03tdSXxY2Sn18iSQLtcxNnZHpvZ0bny9XuPIDBCyDUvqPdWMlX53bjWOyJYFKhmQw== X-Received: by 10.84.142.1 with SMTP id 1mr162279051plw.87.1481355788238; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 23:43:08 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from calancha-pc (177.192.218.133.dy.bbexcite.jp. [133.218.192.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y20sm62321771pfj.26.2016.12.09.23.43.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 09 Dec 2016 23:43:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83zik4fdug.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 10 Dec 2016 09:22:15 +0200") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:126793 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Alex >> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 17:36:15 -0600 >> >> Compare the following: >> >> (let ((x 5) >> (x 6)) >> (+ x 10)) >> >> => 16 >> >> (cl-letf ((x 5) >> (x 6)) >> (+ x 10)) >> >> => 15 > > Isn't it true that the order of evaluation in a 'let' is unspecified? > If you want a particular order, use 'let*'. Right, the order of evaluation in a let is up to the implementation. A program should not rely on such details. The same statement should apply to cl-letf.