[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order
From: |
Tino Calancha |
Subject: |
bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order |
Date: |
Sat, 10 Dec 2016 16:43:02 +0900 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
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)
>> (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.
- bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order, Alex, 2016/12/09
- bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order, Alex, 2016/12/09
- bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/10
- bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order,
Tino Calancha <=
- bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order, Philipp Stephani, 2016/12/10
- bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order, Tino Calancha, 2016/12/10
- bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/10
- bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order, Philipp Stephani, 2016/12/23
- bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order, Tino Calancha, 2016/12/23
- bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/23
- bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order, Philipp Stephani, 2016/12/23
bug#25154: 25.1; Bindings in cl-letf are in reverse order, Alex, 2016/12/10