> 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.)