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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #46 received at 25154 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25154 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, agrambot <at> gmail.com, tino.calancha <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:17:54 +0000

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

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

> > From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:41:16 +0000
> > Cc: 25154 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Alex <agrambot <at> 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.

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

[0001-Document-that-variable-binding-order-is-unspecified.txt (text/plain, attachment)]

Previous Next

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