It seems my suggestion isn't getting too much traction. It occurs to me this may be because I jumped right into layout rules and didn't first give some simple motivating examples to get the idea across. SHORT VERSION: Assume '\' is a grouping construct. I proposed always interpreting ... \x -> do (3a) ... as ... \ { x -> do { ... } } (3b) and never as ... \ { x -> do { }; ... } (3c) or ... \ { x -> do { } } ... (3d) This would be apposed to our current situation of all these being possible depending on if the second line starts past (3c), at (3b), or before (3d) 'x'. We loose nothing is at best empty groups do nothing (let and where) and at worst are errors (do and case) as in the above. LONGER VERSION: What I was suggesting was to change the layout rule that gives you empty groupings. Currently nonsensical nested empty where and let clauses like let { x = ... where { }; ... } (1a) do { let { }; ... } (2a) can be expressed using layouts let x = ... where (1b) ... do let (2b) ... because each new grouping has to be indented further than the previous. This trips us up if we change '\' into a grouping construct as the common ... \x -> do (3a) ... will get interpreted incorrectly as ... \ { x -> do { } } ... (3d) It all seems silly though. At best empty grouping does nothing (let and where) and at worst is an error (do and case). Why then not always go with ... \ { x -> do { ... } } (3b) That is, if a line ends in a grouping clauses and the next line is further indented, then what follows is the associated grouped statements. It's also easier to read. Further indented lines following a grouping clause are associated with that clause. No need to identify other potential grouping clauses and check relative indentation levels. Cheers! -Tyson