Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpltoad!cdollin!kers From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Re: weird common lisp feature [sic] Message-ID: Date: 26 Feb 91 13:25:21 GMT References: <1991Feb21.104336.26012@Think.COM> <18935@brahms.udel.edu> <964@creatures.cs.vt.edu> <1991Feb23.072613.9565@Think.COM> Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK. Lines: 18 In-Reply-To: barmar@think.com's message of 23 Feb 91 07:26:13 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: cdollin.hpl.hp.com Barry Margolin says (amongst other things): The original question was about KCL, which is an implementation of Common Lisp. Common Lisp *does* guarantee left-to-right order of evaluation, just as its predecessors Maclisp and Zetalisp did. Scheme doesn't specify the order of evaluation of function arguments. Where does CLtL guarentee L-to-R order of evaluation? [I've looked in CLtL I, and didn't find anything that did guarantee L-R, but I could have missed it. I *did* find 5.2.2, p61, which talks about when a function represented by a lambda-expression is applied to some arguments and says the args and the parameters are *processed* L-R; but that doesn't mean they have to be *evaluated* L-R. Does it?] -- Regards, Kers. | "You're better off not dreaming of the things to come; Caravan: | Dreams are always ending far too soon."