2016-07-08 9:09 GMT+02:00 Joachim Breitner <m...@joachim-breitner.de>:
> Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 08:35 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne: > > foobar > > do f &&& g > > x > [...] Only with the proposed addition, it becomes an argument to foobar. > [...] > Huh? Nope! The Wiki page explicitly says that do f &&& g x means (f &&& g) x Why should this be different here? Simply writing "foobar" above that construct won't trigger any special layout rules, I hope...
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
