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.