> I try to avoid >>= and >> (or *>) because I know it trips people up; do-notation is more than fine Interesting. Probably it's just me, but I first learned mo

> I try to avoid >>= and >> (or *>) because I know it trips people up; do-notation is more than fine Interesting. Probably it's just me, but I first learned monads using >>= (in OCaml), so at the beginning I found the Haskell do notation more confusing (and indentation rules didn't help). >>= is just a function and I understand its signature well. On the other hand, "do" is a syntactic sugar that I sometimes had to "mentally desugar" in some cases.