Hi, Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 11:32 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne: > 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...
I believe this follows from the existing layout rules.
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.
Greetings,
Joachim
--
--
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
m...@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
