2016-07-08 9:09 GMT+02:00 Joachim Breitner <mail@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...