3 ms·

I haven't checked this, but I believe that: over location.x (+ 10) $ player1 Would be read as: (over location) . (x (+ 10)) $ player1 It looks like

I haven't checked this, but I believe that: over location.x (+ 10) $ player1 Would be read as: (over location) . (x (+ 10)) $ player1 It looks like what you want is: over (location . x) (+ 10) $ player1

IanCal 13y ago
Ah, of course! Thank you, I'll amend the post.
tome 13y ago
Yeah that's a slight niggle with Lens using (.). From an "object oriented" point of view it looks like (.) should have higher precedence than the function application, but in Haskell it doesn't.
- asdasf 13y ago
  That's why I really dislike the tendency for people to use "foo.bar" with Lens instead of "foo . bar". I find the lack of spaces makes it really easy for my brain to slip into OO mode and start forgetting precedence.
  - tome 13y ago
    Yeah I'd agree with you there.