--- a/man/cl.texi	Tue Sep 06 11:44:50 2011 +0100
+++ b/man/cl.texi	Wed Sep 07 16:26:45 2011 +0100
@@ -1799,55 +1799,73 @@
 @subsection Function Bindings
 
 @noindent
-These forms make @code{let}-like bindings to functions instead
-of variables.
+These forms make @code{let}-like bindings to functions instead of
+variables. Normally you should use @code{labels}, it is less expensive in
+compiled code and avoids the problems of dynamic scope.
+
+@defmac labels (bindings@dots{}) forms@dots{}
+This form establishes @code{lexical-let}-style bindings on the function cells
+of symbols rather than on their value cells.  Each @var{binding} must be a
+list of the form @samp{(@var{name} @var{arglist} @var{forms}@dots{})}, which
+defines a function exactly as if it were a @code{defun*} form.  The function
+@var{name} is available within @var{forms}, within the body of @var{name}, and
+within the body of any other functions in @var{bindings}.  This allows the
+establishment of recursive and mutually-referential functions.
+
+These functions are not available by name at run-time to code textually
+outside of the @code{labels} form, though they may be passed to other code by
+value. Since @code{labels} makes lexical rather than dynamic bindings,
+bindings of functions like @code{+} and @code{list} that have byte codes will
+succeed---that is, calls to such functions within @var{form} will reflect the
+bindings within the @code{labels} form, something not true of @code{flet},
+which see.
+
+Within @var{forms}, to access a bound function as a callable object, quote its
+name using @var{#'name}, as in the following example.
+
+@example
+(labels ((1+ (number)
+           "Return 1.0 added to NUMBER"
+           (+ number 1.0)))
+  (map 'vector #'1+ '(10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1)))
+  @result{} [11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0]
+@end example
+
+Functions defined by @code{labels} may use the full Common Lisp argument
+notation supported by @code{defun*}; also, the function body is enclosed in an
+implicit block as if by @code{defun*}.  @xref{Program Structure}.
+@end defmac
 
 @defmac flet (bindings@dots{}) forms@dots{}
-This form establishes @code{let}-style bindings on the function
-cells of symbols rather than on the value cells.  Each @var{binding}
-must be a list of the form @samp{(@var{name} @var{arglist}
-@var{forms}@dots{})}, which defines a function exactly as if
-it were a @code{defun*} form.  The function @var{name} is defined
-accordingly for the duration of the body of the @code{flet}; then
-the old function definition, or lack thereof, is restored.
-
-While @code{flet} in Common Lisp establishes a lexical binding of
-@var{name}, Emacs Lisp @code{flet} makes a dynamic binding.  The
-result is that @code{flet} affects indirect calls to a function as
-well as calls directly inside the @code{flet} form itself.
-
-You can use @code{flet} to disable or modify the behavior of a
-function in a temporary fashion.  This will even work on Emacs
-primitives, although note that some calls to primitive functions
-internal to Emacs are made without going through the symbol's
-function cell, and so will not be affected by @code{flet}.  For
-example,
+This form establishes @code{let}-style bindings on the function cells of
+symbols rather than on the value cells.  In contravention of Common Lisp,
+Emacs Lisp @code{flet} establishes dynamic bindings (available at runtime)
+rather than lexical (available at compile time, but outside of @var{forms},
+not at runtime). The result is that @code{flet} affects indirect calls to a
+function as well as calls directly inside the @code{flet} form itself.
+
+You can use @code{flet} to disable or modify the behavior of a function in a
+temporary fashion.  This will even work on XEmacs primitives, although note
+that some calls to primitive functions internal to XEmacs are made without
+going through the symbol's function cell, and so will not be affected by
+@code{flet}.  For example,
 
 @example
 (flet ((message (&rest args) (push args saved-msgs)))
   (do-something))
 @end example
 
-This code attempts to replace the built-in function @code{message}
-with a function that simply saves the messages in a list rather
-than displaying them.  The original definition of @code{message}
-will be restored after @code{do-something} exits.  This code will
-work fine on messages generated by other Lisp code, but messages
-generated directly inside Emacs will not be caught since they make
-direct C-language calls to the message routines rather than going
-through the Lisp @code{message} function.
-
-Functions defined by @code{flet} may use the full Common Lisp
-argument notation supported by @code{defun*}; also, the function
-body is enclosed in an implicit block as if by @code{defun*}.
-@xref{Program Structure}.
-@end defmac
-
-@defmac labels (bindings@dots{}) forms@dots{}
-The @code{labels} form is a synonym for @code{flet}.  (In Common
-Lisp, @code{labels} and @code{flet} differ in ways that depend on
-their lexical scoping; these distinctions vanish in dynamically
-scoped Emacs Lisp.)
+This code attempts to replace the built-in function @code{message} with a
+function that simply saves the messages in a list rather than displaying them.
+The original definition of @code{message} will be restored after
+@code{do-something} exits.  This code will work fine on messages generated by
+other Lisp code, but messages generated directly inside XEmacs will not be
+caught since they make direct C-language calls to the message routines rather
+than going through the Lisp @code{message} function.
+
+This is equally true for functions with associated byte codes, since they are
+also not accessed through the Lisp function slot.  The byte compiler will
+warn in both these cases.
 @end defmac
 
 @node Macro Bindings, , Function Bindings, Variable Bindings