Fix example that did not compile and following paragraph

[Sporarum]

Compiling the code on latest main gives:

{
  val x = f(x: Int, y => // Recursive value x needs type
    x * (
      y + 1
    ) +
    (x +
    x)
  )
}

Which makes sense as we basically write val x = f(x)

[bishabosha]

does this have an issue that should be linked?

[som-snytt]

As a neophyte, I can't tell if : Int is intended.

It would be poetic justice to val x = 3. :)

[Sporarum]

It works because for example val y = x: Int is valid, it widens the type of the expression to Int

And since you can use arbitrary expressions as parameters, val y = f(x: Int) is valid

[som-snytt]

Rephrasing: as a neophyte, : Int is confusing to me. What is it an example of? What does it illustrate? There is no definition of f, is that correct? Therefore, it is not a cut/paste example. Of course, the language reference is permitted to be arbitrarily obscure.

Edit: I should have added, I have no inner need to be right here or to be heard.

[bishabosha]

I thought it was some way to illustrate that the parser isn't treating the argument list like 2 lambda parameters? but its strange to use it there. It probably shouldn't be there unless it specifically illustrates something

[Sporarum]

I 100% agree, I didn't change it because I wanted this PR to be minimal

I did not look at other parts of this page than the examples either, there might be other improvements possible

[Sporarum]

does this have an issue that should be linked?

Sorry I updated the post to give a bit more context, I discovered this while making #18066