On 30/10/2012, at 5:56 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
> For example, I generally prefer using the combinators directly when dealing with functors, applicatives, and monads.  This can be written "wide", but it can also be written in the style of:
>
> > f' = f <$> (a >>= g)
> >        <*> (b >>= h)
> >        <*> (c >>= i >>= k)
>
> That is perfectly sensible.  But if I had to repeat this syntactic construct, I would probably do it wide:
>
> > f' = f <$> (a >>= g) <*> (b >>= h) <*> (c >>= i >>= k)
> > g' = g <$> (d >>= g) <*> (e >>= h) <*> (f >>= i >>= k)

   021346789021346789021346789021346789021346789021346789

>
> The new row exposes a sort of "tabular" structure.

The trouble is that this is not real code.

As it stands, nobody is complaining about this example.
It fits well into 65 columns, being 60 columns wide.

I really would like to see real examples.