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.
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.