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

Reply via email to