Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> schrieb am Sa., 10. Dez. 2016 um 15:09 Uhr:

> > From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:41:16 +0000
> > Cc: 25154@debbugs.gnu.org, Alex <agrambot@gmail.com>
> >
> >  > 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.
>
> I agree, patches to that effect are welcome.  (AFAICT, the manual
> tries to say that already, but the wording could be more explicit.)
>

OK, I've attached a patch that hopefully clarifies this a bit.