This approach to the "do" syntax requires that the function implementer know the monad type a priori. That defeats some of the purpose of monad as general abst

This approach to the "do" syntax requires that the function implementer know the monad type a priori. That defeats some of the purpose of monad as general abstraction. One of the big ideas here, as far as I'm concerned, is that monads represent an abstraction over a common structure of programs. Lists, Maybes, threading models, etc, all share this same language of structuring computations. This is significant because it means that one can build functions which manipulate those structures, and then those structures can be deployed generically. Depending on how you're counting, that means third-order abstraction. For instance, consider liftM from Control.Monad: -- | Promote a function to a monad. liftM :: (Monad m) => (a1 -> r) -> m a1 -> m r liftM f m1 = do { x1 <- m1; return (f x1) } This represents a common idea across e.g. both List and Maybe. I've got a function of values. I want to turn it into a function of Lists / Maybes. Well, liftM recognizes the similarity of List's and Maybe's structure and provides a single implementation suitable for both places. The decorator described in this article cannot function at liftM's level of abstraction: at least as far as I can tell (as a non-Python programmer), it requires a monad type parameter. If that's true, I think it's missing a key idea behind the power of monads.