From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Philipp Stephani Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:41:16 +0000 Message-ID: References: <8737hwllow.fsf@gmail.com> <83zik4fdug.fsf@gnu.org> <8760msmdq1.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118454cef77e805434e06fd X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1481377343 16546 195.159.176.226 (10 Dec 2016 13:42:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:42:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 25154@debbugs.gnu.org, Alex To: Tino Calancha , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 10 14:42:14 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 1cFhul-0001pG-Eq for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:42:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51810 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cFhum-00073y-Ac for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 08:42:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43574) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cFhuf-00073s-9p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 08:42:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cFhuc-0001y5-40 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 08:42:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49459) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cFhuc-0001xx-08 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 08:42:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cFhub-0004zR-Hj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 08:42:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Philipp Stephani Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:42:01 +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: notabug Original-Received: via spool by 25154-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25154.148137729419144 (code B ref 25154); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:42:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25154) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Dec 2016 13:41:34 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36625 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cFhuA-0004yi-C6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 08:41:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wj0-f173.google.com ([209.85.210.173]:36758) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cFhu8-0004yS-D8 for 25154@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 08:41:33 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wj0-f173.google.com with SMTP id tk12so36049572wjb.3 for <25154@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 05:41:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NshyEaDwfAFUbQgz9v/7PAZv2D6YFfD4mJuzrspfMok=; b=MfzU6NVmsUAg4Y0SFJqs9H0JhPCw8kRl0AvOxl3Tiz7nwbmgdwJcMzLHTzKP/zqiUu aiaF/8Sguhvt54rijL1qxN0wU2aDvSUDtqDYk0iasuvHfK3pRBL8JHtK+o5uLh30l0+0 DBn5gQKDe7/BbpV+tJJ9kj/AB8G92ZnSCM0Qmn20fy/jj7ISqHB1M0EhZivD4DhJAV5d 7C1s1sudfzkdaBlUqIGKDBfyFtNxdbdPpShkcB3KK9/RFFed0EnkrvGYTxwKef/lOPt0 ZvMSjAIUf+TRSV1pViSzrWKHfMzuxYegsT3hnk4O1cAx4oBX3tzitAZFz842ilHOVGLp l+lw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NshyEaDwfAFUbQgz9v/7PAZv2D6YFfD4mJuzrspfMok=; b=T03rjKkDZBtQQe6YpsDt17vjHGBXGmgCC9J5zRQa7hi8Rmr+bJ1E07lvb1L5c4Lz20 vw39LW0DY9iF8r5TF+ksvLeahRgopgC5CkEMo6R0QbWhlh2ZVJfUiS9hfAEL0WW7Pdye My5xMogkhJ0bfqLpWU0Q+KWriqRa1+pGUh5E6HHYnig3FyWcBvuMoYhpGIygDCJZ5G2X Abi74b+paYLsqA6Ae4nhd9VP5aHZM615Jc0ojCCOP5AENnBmUXUyZWbXBNqG4C9zWfj3 0WacqRoLVnnSAol+xKE/neS1UJmO6I5aSM+s0r7e2sn04ZZ3DLeRaFFIr1FFel3v6/EG D2/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00RSDITVw0TZZLfprsuDDUuSwptyPYMMzp3V9JKzCFcmw7DJQnMwjDhiZwp7hRWyZ94ZcQ0o2Yt3eno7Q== X-Received: by 10.194.148.4 with SMTP id to4mr72742149wjb.194.1481377286418; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 05:41:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <8760msmdq1.fsf@gmail.com> 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:126796 Archived-At: --089e0118454cef77e805434e06fd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Tino Calancha schrieb am Sa., 10. Dez. 2016 um 08:45 Uhr: > 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. > > > > 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. --089e0118454cef77e805434e06fd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Tino C= alancha <tino.calancha@gmail.= com> schrieb am Sa., 10. Dez. 2016 um 08:45=C2=A0Uhr:
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)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(x 6))
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0(+ x 10))
>>
>> =3D> 16
>>
>> (cl-letf ((x 5)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(x 6))
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0(+ x 10))
>>
>> =3D> 15
>
> Isn't it true that the order of evaluation in a 'let' is u= nspecified?
> If you want a particular order, use 'let*'.
Right, the order of evaluation in a let is up to the implementation.=C2=A0 = A program
should not rely on such details.
The same statement should apply to cl-letf.




I think that shoul= d be mentioned explicitly in the manuals: given that the order of value eva= luations is specified, people might expect the same for the bindings themse= lves.
--089e0118454cef77e805434e06fd--