From: simonmar <unknown>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:41:36 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: [project @ 2005-02-17 14:41:36 by simonmar]
X-Git-Tag: Initial_conversion_from_CVS_complete~1058
X-Git-Url: http://git.megacz.com/?p=ghc-hetmet.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=bafd845b51a36899cdb53970afb3b2c055f94ada

[project @ 2005-02-17 14:41:36 by simonmar]
Mention GHC's relaxation of the layout rule
---

diff --git a/ghc/docs/users_guide/bugs.xml b/ghc/docs/users_guide/bugs.xml
index 0bdb38c..f9fc964 100644
--- a/ghc/docs/users_guide/bugs.xml
+++ b/ghc/docs/users_guide/bugs.xml
@@ -46,7 +46,27 @@
       <sect3 id="infelicities-syntax">
 	<title>Context-free syntax</title>
 	
-      <itemizedlist>
+	<itemizedlist>
+	  <listitem>
+	    <para>GHC is a little less strict about the layout rule when used
+	      in <literal>do</literal> expressions.  Specifically, the
+	      restriction that "a nested context must be indented further to
+	      the right than the enclosing context" is relaxed to allow the
+	      nested context to be at the same level as the enclosing context,
+	      if the enclosing context is a <literal>do</literal>
+	      expression.</para>
+
+	    <para>For example, the following code is accepted by GHC:
+
+<programlisting>
+main = do args &lt;- getArgs
+	  if null args then return [] else do
+          ps &lt;- mapM process args
+          mapM print ps</programlisting>
+
+	      </para>
+	  </listitem>
+
 	<listitem>
 	  <para>GHC doesn't do fixity resolution in expressions during
 	  parsing.  For example, according to the Haskell report, the