Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 10. Dez. 2016 um
08:45 Uhr:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> From: Alex <agrambot@gmail.com>
> >> 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.
>
>
>
>
I think that should be mentioned explicitly in the manuals: given that the
order of value evaluations is specified, people might expect the same for
the bindings themselves.