Folks, You have all been eating too much Xmas pudding. Only one Haskell98 Report issue has arisen since my release of 21 Dec. The issue is this: Section 3.5 says that (a + b +) is a valid operator section (meaning \x -> a + b + x) because (+) is right associative. But this is contradicted by the actual syntax, which only has the productions: aexp ::= '(' exp(i+1) qop(a,i) ')' | '(' qop(a,i) exp(i+1) ')' (Here 'a' ranges over the possible operator associativities of left, right, non-assoc, while i ranges over precendence levels.) This is clearly an inconsistency. I propose to fix the syntax in the way proposed by Simon and Ian (in a thread on GHC-bugs), by adding the following productions for aexp. '(' lexp(i) qop(l,i) ')' '(' qop(r,i) rexp(i) ')' This actually follows the way that qfunlhs is defined. There is no ambiguity, because an exp(i+1) is not an lexp(i). This should bring the formal syntax into line with the words in Section 3.5. Can anyone think of a reason why this won't work? Simon