From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Philipp Stephani
> 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>= ;
>
>=C2=A0 > Isn't it true that the order of evaluation in a 'le= t' is unspecified?
>=C2=A0 > If you want a particular order, use 'let*'.
>=C2=A0 Right, the order of evaluation in a let is up to the implementat= ion. A program
>=C2=A0 should not rely on such details.
>=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 (AFAICT, the manual
tries to say that already, but the wording could be more explicit.)