From: rodrigo vanegas
Subject: argument evaluation
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1993 00:16:07 +0000
Message-ID: <RV.93Jun3191607@costello.cs.brown.edu>

I know that i should not write code that depends on this, but i'm
curious as to whether The Definition (CLtL2) has anything to say about
it.  Do we always get the following behavior?

  > (+ (print 1) (print 2))
  1
  2
  3


rodrigo vanegas
··@cs.brown.edu

ps. yes, i rtfm'ed. (twice!)

From: Barry Margolin
Subject: Re: argument evaluation
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1993 04:17:05 +0000
Message-ID: <1up6o1INN5rp@early-bird.think.com>

In article <···············@costello.cs.brown.edu> ··@cs.brown.edu (rodrigo vanegas) writes:
>I know that i should not write code that depends on this, but i'm
>curious as to whether The Definition (CLtL2) has anything to say about
>it.  Do we always get the following behavior?
>
>  > (+ (print 1) (print 2))
>  1
>  2
>  3

Yes, Common Lisp requires car-to-cdr evaluation of function arguments.
Finding it in CLtL is difficult, though.  I believe the description of SETF
mentions that the standard SETF expanders maintain "the normal
left-to-right argument evaluation order."  This implies that left-to-right
argument evaluation order is normal.

The dpANS says it right out.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

······@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar