2016-07-08 12:28 GMT+02:00 Joachim Breitner <m...@joachim-breitner.de>:
> Currenlty, > > foobar > (do f &&& g) > x > > calls foobar with two arguments, while > > (do f &&& g) > x > > calls (f &&& g) with one argument. The ArgumentDo proposal does not change > that, only that the parenthesis become redundant. > I don't think so: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ArgumentDo#BlockasaLHS explicit states that do f &&& g x parses as (f &&& g) x , so foobar do f &&& g x parses as foobar ((f &&& g) x) under the new proposal, which I find highly confusing. If it doesn't parse like this under the proposal, the wiki page is wrong and/or the proposal is not compositional: Why should being below "foobar" change the parse? "foobar" is not a keyword switching to some different mode.
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
