GNU bug report logs - #25154
25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order

Previous Next

Full log

Message #19 received at 25154 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
To: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25154 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Alex <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:41:16 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 10. Dez. 2016 um
08:45 Uhr:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> From: Alex <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
> >> 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.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.