bug#67116: byte-compile-let: reversing the order of evaluation of the clauses CAN make a difference

[Mattias Engdegård]

>                           (let
>                               ((beg pos)
>                                 (end (setq pos
>                                                (next-single-property-change
>                                                 pos 'fontified
>                                                 nil (point-max)))))
>                             (put-text-property beg end 'fontified nil)
>                             (jit-lock-fontify-now beg end))
> 
> gets byte compiled, the order of evaluating BEG and END gets reversed so
> that END gets evaluated first.  Since the value for END contains (setq
> pos ...), BEG gets this updated value of POS rather then the original
> intended value.

No, the generated code looks correct. Do you have any reason to believe it's 
not?

(Of course I always blame the compiler first. It's programmer tradition!)