> If I am reading you correctly, I appreciate the effort at correctness, but you misread. The key bit was: > You have map that maps (a -> b) functions, and yo

> If I am reading you correctly, I appreciate the effort at correctness, but you misread. The key bit was: > You have map that maps (a -> b) functions, and you need another map-like for (a -> m b) functions. I'm trying to write briefly, but I hope readers would interpret "map" and "map-like" as something from `m a` to `m b`. Or as you said: > The critical piece of monads is the ability to turn a generic (a -> m b) function into an (m a -> m b) function. We're saying the same thing. It's about using (a -> m b) functions in a map-like way.