Malcolm writes:
> Unfortunately, the example given in the Report is nothing like as clear
> - in fact, I still don't understand it. Perhaps someone could explain
> it to me?
>
> > f x = let
> > h y = let
> > p z = z
> > in p
> >in h
>
> > Here, the definition of p is indented less than the indentation of the
> > enclosing context, which is set in this case by the definition of h.
>
> To me, it looks like it is not the *definition* of p that is indented
> less, but the *use*. Is that right?
There appears to be a bug in the html version of the report,
the ps and pdf versions show this example of illegal syntax as
f x = let
h y = let
p z = z
in p
in h
Mike
